Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916"

See other formats



3 1833 02141 9996 

Gc 977.2 St6hi 
Stoll, John B., 1843-1926, 
History of the Indiana 
democracy, 1816-1916 

^Thomas Jefferson filAVANDREW Jackson f 


g, I Samuel J Tilden_ 














N I N E T E E N . S E V E N T E E N 



URING the three years that I was engaged in writing this book, 
the early history of Indiana naturally often became the sub- 
ject of conversation in mingling with educators, legislators, 
politicians, editors and men engaged in professional and busi- 
ness pursuits. In all these talks but one individual revealed 
knowledge of the fact that under the first constitution, in force 
from 1816 to 1851, the people of the commonwealth were per- 
mitted to vote for and elect only two State officers — Governor 
and Lieutenant-Governor. Other State officers were elected 
by the General Assembly. Judges were appointed by the Governor. 

Among all those with whom I conversed relative to these matters, there 
,was not a single one cognizant of the fact that the first constitution of In- 
diana never was submitted to popular vote for adoption or rejection, but 
became the supreme law of the State as drafted by the constitutional con- 
vention, whose members had been chosen by the voters of the territory. 

The idea of a responsible leadership and belief in the efficacy of a rep- 
resentative government were far more strongly intrenched in the public 
mind than may be said to have been the case when in later years popular 
delusion gave emphasis to the theory that ability and power to lead meant 
curtailment of the right of the people to rule. 

Thoughtful perusal of this book will make clear what sort of govern- 
ment the founders of the Republic had in mind when they established the 
United States of North America. A clear understanding can be gathered 
of the principles applied in the formation of this government by closely fol- 
lowing the historical recital in the opening chapters. No one can intelli- 
gently peruse the pages of this book without becoming greatly enriched in 
information that will be found of incalculable value in the exercise of the 
prerogatives of citizenship and the performance of duty devolving upon an 
alert and patriotic electorate. 

[Chapter I.] 





pMINALLY, the Democratic 
party, whose history in Indiana 
it is the purpose of this volume 
to narrate, is younger by a 
dozen years than the State 
itself; but in its principles, al- 
though not in its name, it 
traces its lineage to Thomas Jefferson, 
the author of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and in that sense is as old as 
the Nation. The State of Indiana, and 
the country in which it is an important 
commonwealth, have never been without 
a political party. Wherever the active 
life of the people has been developed, po- 
litical parties have always sprung into 
existence. An absence of political parties 
would be an indication of passive indiffer- 
ence to their true interests on the part of 
the people, or of tyrannical repression on 
the part of their rulers. 

The freest and most gifted nations have 
the most sharply defined political partisan- 
ship. It is not a commendable virtue for 
a citizen to stand aloof from political 
activity, and it should be a shame rather 
than a boast for any intelligent person to 
declare that he does not affiliate with or 
"belong" to a political party. 

Edmund Burke defined a political party 
as "a body of men united in promoting, by 
their joint endeavors, the national inter- 
est in some particular policy or movement 
in which they are all agreed." The very 
name "party" indicates that each such 
body of men represents but a part of the 
citizens. Therefore, a party possesses the 
consciousness of only one part of the Na- 

tion and has no right to attempt to identi- 
fy itself with the whole and arrogate to 
itself all the virtues and patriotism of the 
people. Convinced that its principles are 
for the best interests of the public, it may 
rightfully combat for them and seek to 
have them prevail, but it has no right to 
ignore the views of those who differ from 
it or to seek the utter destruction of other 
parties. In fact, the experience of popu- 
lar governments demonstrates that the 
public interest is best promoted by the ex- 
istence of two nearly equally balanced po- 
litical parties. 

During the Revolutionary War, which 
resulted in the establishment of this Na- 
tion, there were but two parties — those 
favoring continued allegiance to Great 
Britain, and those supporting the move- 
ment for independence. The latter called 
themselves Patriots, and the others 
Tories ; while the former designated them- 
selves as Loyalists and their opponents as 
Rebels. Doubtless both were sincere, and 
high authority has defined a patriot revo- 
lutionist as a "simply successful rebel." 

The Confederation in which the Colonies 
had united to achieve their independence 
was soon found inadequate to meet the 
exigencies of an independent Nation. So 
a convention was called to amend the Arti- 
cles of Confederation. At once two par- 
ties appeared. One, including Washing- 
ton, Hamilton, Franklin and Pinckney, be- 
lieved a strong central government neces- 
.sary. The other, including Thomas Jeffer- 
.son, Patrick Henrj', Samuel Adams, 
George Clinton and James Monroe, feared 



that the central government, if too power- 
ful, would infringe upon the liberty of the 
people. The former party was called Fed- 
eralist, and the latter Anti-Federalist. 
The Federal Constitution, as finally 
adopted, was a compromise, providing an 
instrument capable of a double interpreta- 
tion on the disputed point, and the two 
parties continued under the new govern- 
ment. The Federalists gave the Constitu- 
tion a broad construction with large pow- 
ers to the Nation, while the Anti-Federal- 
ists gave a strict construction, which made 
the States the paramount authority except 
in specially defined cases. Alexander 
Hamilton was from the first the leader of 
the former party, and Thomas Jefferson 
was soon recognized as the head of the 
latter. Both men were members of Presi- 
dent Washington's cabinet. But the Pres- 
ident's firm conviction of the necessity for 
a strong central government enabled the 
Federalists to control the policy of Con- 
gress during the first twelve years — the 
formative period of the new government. 
Besides, through the life tenure of the 
members of the Supreme Court, Federal- 
ist views on the construction of the Con- 
stitution prevailed for many years in the 
judicial branch of the government. 

Jefl'erson's political sagacity led him 
early to perceive that an "anti" party 
would not successfully appeal to the peo- 
ple, so he sought a party name that should 
stand for something affirmative. His own 
idealism in connection with a residence in 
France made him an admirer of the prin- 
ciples set forth by the French in establish- 
ing their Republic. Moreover, there pul- 
sated throughout this country a feeling of 
grateful sympathy for France because of 
the assistance she had rendered us in our 
war for independence. With shrewd po- 
litical wisdom Jefferson appropriated this 
sympathy by using the term which the 
French had employed and named his party 
"Republican." The Anti-Federalists had 
already accused Hamilton of influencing 

Washington to favor a government mod- 
eled after that of England, which, under 
popular forms, would, they asserted, 
actually establish monarchical or, at best, 
aristocratic rule. In fact, in the political 
bitterness of the times, the Federalists 
were often by their opponents called mon- 

The formal beginning of this Repub- 
lican party dates from May 13, 1792, 
when JeflFerson, still a member of the 
Cabinet, addressed a letter to President 
Washington in which he said: "The Re- 
publican party, who wish to preserve the 
government in its present form, are fewer 
in numbers than the Monarchical Federal- 
ists. They are fewer, even when joined 
by the two or three, or half a dozen Anti- 
Federalists, who, though they dare not 
avow it, are still opposed to any general 
government; but being less so to a Re- 
publican than to a monarchical one, they 
naturally side with those whom they think 
pursuing the lesser evil." 

This may be taken as the platform of 
the Jeffersonian Republican party; and 
no political pronouncement was ever more 
adroitly worded to appeal to all the dis- 
satisfied elements of the people. Its as- 
sumption that the Federalists were pre- 
paring the way for a monarchy; its ap- 
parent solicitude for the preservation of 
the Constitution, and its repudiation of 
the views of the extreme States' Rights 
partisan, were calculated to attract not 
only the actual opponents of the adminis- 
tration, but the conservative supporters 
of the new form of government. 

Washington's proclamation of neutrali- 
ty in the war between France and Eng- 
land brought into prominence a class of 
active politicians among the sympathizers 
with the former country. They assumed 
the name "Democrat" and formed a circle 
of societies patterned after the Jacobin 
Clubs of Paris. One of them, indeed, the 
Charleston Society, actually affiliated with 
the Paris Clubs. Their prime instigator 


1 9 1 

was the French ambassador, Genet. These 
societies became quite numerous in the 
central and southern states. For a time 
they were very active and extremely vin- 
dictive in language, branding all who did 
not agree with them as enemies of "the 
people." They humored the whims and 
passions of the more ignorant masses, as- 
sumed eccentricities of dress and lan- 
guage, and expressed contempt for all 
constituted authority. With the natural 
instinct of their class to be "agin' the gov- 
ernment," they sided with the party of 
Jefferson and called themselves, political- 
ly, "Democratic-Republicans," and were 
particularly vicious in abuse of Washing- 
ton. The Federalists were horrified and 
the Republican leaders disgusted with 
their antics ; nevertheless, the latter were 
naturally not averse to receiving the aid 
of their votes. 

With the same spirit which during the 
Civil War led the two political parties at 
the North to dub their opponents respect- 
ively as "Abolitionists" and "Copper- 
heads," the Republicans in those days had 
called the Federalists "Monarchists," and 
now the Federalists retorted by terming 
the Republicans "Democrats." 
® These "Democratic-Republicans," how- 
05 ever, were not the progenitors of the 
^ Democratic party whose illustrious lead- 
? ers later helped to build the greatness of 
o Indiana. Their societies were regarded in 
M those days very much as is the I. W. W. 
00 organization at present. A prominent 
„ member of the Jeffersonian party, Hon. 
Edward Livingston, speaking years after 
of the conditions at that time, stated that 
gross as were the attacks upon Washing- 
ton, they came from Bache, Leib and 
Duane, and the noisy and frequently silly 
leaders of the professed Democrats; and 
it is greatly creditable to the Republicans 
proper that their opposition to Washing- 
ton's administration was legitimate, and 
their public utterances were decorous and 
affectionate toward the President per- 

Although later writers have applied the 
names "Democrat," "Republican," and 
"Democratic-Republican" interchangeably 
to the party of Jefferson, there is 
abundant evidence that for a quarter of 
a century the party leaders avoided the 
name assumed by the imitators of the 
Jacobin Clubs of Paris, and it is said that 
Andrew Jackson in those early years de- 
nounced the appellation "Democrat" as a 
political slander. At any rate, when Jef- 
ferson, in his first inaugural, appealing 
for the support of the entire American 
people, declared "We are all Federalists, 
we are all Republicans," he did not men- 
tion any Democrats. The fact is that the 
suppression of the whisky insurrection, 
which those societies were charged with 
having incited, and, a little later, the 
threatened war with France, virtually 
drove them out of existence. It was not 
until the odium created by the folly and 
extravagancies of their promoters had 
been forgotten in the lapse of years, that 
the term Democratic in its true sense of 
"rule by the demos" — all the people — was 
revived in its old glorious Grecian mean- 
ing and accepted by a political party in 
this country. And that occurred when 
the State of Indiana was twelve years 

The Federalist party, of which Alex- 
ander Hamilton was the acknowledged 
leader, had two objectives : First, to form 
a government strong enough to make and 
hold a place among the nations of the 
earth; and, secondly, to create a central 
authority sufficiently powerful to coalesce 
the diverse and often conflicting interests 
of the various states into one general wel- 
fare. In pursuit of the first objective 
James Madison was in hearty and active 
accord with Hamilton, and they worked 
together effectively, through the framing 
and adoption of the Federal Constitution, 
and the first two years of Washington's 
administration — the vital period in the 
organization of the government. To Madi- 


-19 1 

son was due very largely the framing of 
the "Compromises of the Constitution" — 
those phrases on which differing construc- 
tions could be and have been placed. It 
was as to the meaning of these phrases 
that the distinction of "Strict Construc- 
tionist" and "Broad Constructionist" 
arose. Jefferson, whose absence from the 
country as Minister to France from 1785 
had prevented him from taking part in 
the framing or adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, became, on his return in 1789, the 
leader of the Strict Constructionists, and 
on matters of internal policy he was 
joined by Madison. There were, however, 
able and patriotic men on both sides of 
the question — said question being funda- 
mentally", whether the Federal govern- 
ment has only limited, strictly defined 
powers, leaving the States supreme within 
their respective borders, and, in conse- 
quence, whether the primary allegiance 
of the citizen is due to his State or to the 
Nation. This question was not finally set- 
tled until it was decided by the arbitra- 
ment of arms in the Civil War. 

It is interesting to note, however, that 
whatever may have been their theory as 
to the construction of the Constitution, 
the six most noted Presidents have not 
hesitated to exercise the broadest govern- 
mental and executive authority when, in 
their judgment, the "general welfare" de- 
manded it. Washington did this in the 
whisky insurrection and in his proclama- 
tion of neutrality in the war between 
France and England; Jefferson did it in 
the purchase of Louisiana, and in laying 
the embargo; Jackson did it in removing 
the bank deposits, and in suppressing 
nullification; Lincoln did it in suspending 
the writ of habeas corpus and in issuing 
the emancipation proclamation; Cleveland 
did it in the Chicago strike, and in his 
notice to England in the Venezuela mat- 
ter, and Roosevelt did it in the anthracite 
troubles and in acquiring the Panama 
canal zone. 

The first popular test between the Fed- 
eralist and Republican parties came in the 
presidential election of 1796. There were 
no formal nominations, but a general as- 
sent that the Federalist candidate for 
President should be Washington's asso- 
ciate as Vice-President, John Adams, and 
that the Republican candidate should be 
Thomas Jefferson. The electors at that 
time voted for two candidates. The one 
having the highest vote became President 
and the one with the next highest, Vice- 
President. As to their second choice, the 
Republicans were divided between Aaron 
Burr and Samuel Adams — Burr receiving 
30 votes and Adams 15. The Federalists 
were likewise divided — Thomas Pinckney 
of South Carolina having 59, and Oliver 
Ellsworth of Connecticut, 11. There were 
also a number of scattering votes, Wash- 
ington himself receiving one. Of the two 
chief candidates, Adams received 71 votes 
and Jefferson 68. Thus Adams became 
President and Jefferson Vice-President. 
A. K. McClure, in his book, "Our Presi- 
dents and How We Make Them," says of 
this election: "In no modern national 
campaign have the candidates been so ma- 
liciously defamed as were those in this 
contest of the fathers of the republic. 
Jefferson was denounced as an unscrupu- 
lous demagogue, and Adams was de- 
nounced as a kingly despot without 
sympathy for the people and opposed to 
every principle of popular government." 

The alien and sedition laws enacted dur- 
ing Adams' administration were an ex- 
treme exercise of centralized power. They 
were aimed at the practices of the Demo- 
cratic societies, but were opposed by 
Hamilton as uncalled for, unwise, and a 
fatal political blunder. They tended, as 
he foresaw, to make the Federalist ad- 
ministration obnoxious to the people. 
Washington died during the last days of 
the year 1799, and the campaign of 1800 
was a repetition of that of four years 
previous, both in the personality of the 



18 16-191 

candidates and the virulence of the oppos- 
ing sides. This time each party voted 
unitedly for its two candidates, giving the 
opportunity for a tie. The Republicans 
had 73 electoral votes for Jefferson and 
Burr, and the Federalists 65 for Adams 
and Pinckney. As the vote was a tie be- 
tween Jefferson and Burr, and as each had 
a majority of the electoral college, the 
House of Representatives, under the Con- 
stitution, had to elect one of the two as 
President, whereupon the other would be- 
come Vice-President. As the Federalists 
were "out of it" so far as a candidate of 
their own was concerned, their Represen- 
tatives in Congress either abstained from 
voting, or voted as personal or partisan 
motives influenced them. The voting was 
by States, and the contest continued seven 
days. Hamilton, regarding Jefferson as 
much the safer man for President, cast 
his influence in his favor and he finally 
received the votes of ten States to four 
for Burr and two blank. 

This action of Hamilton aroused the un- 
dying hatred of Aaron Burr, and was the 
underlying cause of the challenge to a 
duel, which the "code of honor" of that 
day compelled Hamilton to accept, and in 
which he was killed. Before his death, 
however, Hamilton had warmly sustained 
the action of Jefferson in the acquisition 
of Louisiana, although most of the Fed- 
eralists, for partisan reasons, denounced 
the purchase as bitterly as latter-day anti- 
imperialists have denounced the acquisi- 
tion of Porto Rico and the Philippines. 
Indeed, such is the course of politics that 
had Hamilton lived it is not a violent pre- 
sumption that he and Jefferson would have 
been actively co-operating for the good 
of the country. 

Adams took his defeat hard. He packed 
his goods and left the White House at 
midnight of March 3. Still time tempers 
even the asperities of politics. Adams 
lived to see his son hold important offices 
under Jefferson and his successors, and 

even to be a Republican President. There 
was, moreover, friendly correspondence 
between Jefferson and Adams, and both 
died on the Fourth of July, 1826 — the 
fiftieth anniversary of the day made 
memorably glorious by their mutual 
action in the Continental Congress. 

Burr resigned the Vice-Presidency, bade 
farewell to the Senate in a speech that 
moved even his enemies to tears, em- 
barked upon a scheme to wrest Mexico 
from the Spaniards and establish either 
an independent republic or an empire, was 
tried for treason on the charge that he 
intended to seize part of Louisiana in the 
scheme, and, though acquitted, was thor- 
oughly discredited, and died in poverty 
and obscurity.* 

The experience at this election led to 
an amendment of the Constitution estab- 
lishing the present system of electing the 
President and Vice-President by separate 
votes of the electors. 

In the administration of his office Jef- 
ferson practiced the democratic simplicity 
of manners which he professed. He 
avoided all pomp and ceremony. The 
stories of his hitching his horse to the 
fence on the occasion of his inauguration, 
and of his receiving foreign ministers in 
dressing-gown and slippers, are probably 
as mythical as the tale of Washington and 
the cherry tree, or of Jackson's smoking 

*The retirement of Aaron Burr from the Vice- 
Presidency before the expiration of his term has 
been variously treated by historians. Some have 
entirely ignored it, and some have called it "resig- 
nation." Parton says he "took leave of the Sen- 
ate," and gives a dramatic account of the scene 
when the Senators, moved to tears by Burr's elo- 
quence, unanimously adopted resolutions extolling 
his fairness as presiding officer, and proceeded to 
elect one of their number as president pro-tem to 
succeed him. The event occurred during execu- 
tive session March 2, 1805. Burr's motive can 
only be surmised. He himself quietly attributed 
it to "indisposition," which might refer to physical 
illness and might mean that he was "indisposed" 
to participation in the installation of his hated 
enemy, George Clinton, the vice-president elect. 
Possibly he desired the spectacular effect actually 
produced. But, whatever his motive, or by what- 
ever name the act be designated, Aaron Burr abso- 
lutely relinquished the Vice-Presidency two days 
before his term of office expired. 




a corn-cob pipe while transacting business 
with representatives of other nations. 
But, instead of delivering his inaugural 
address in person, as Washington and 
Adams had done, after the manner of the 
King of England to Parliament, he sent in 
a written message to be read by the clerk, 
thus establishing a precedent that was fol- 
lowed by all of his successors until the 
time of Woodrow Wilson, who returned 
to the practice of Washington. 

For the elections of 1804, formal nomi- 
nations were for the first time made. The 
Republican members of Congress met in 
caucus and renominated Jefferson for 
President, at the same time nominating 
George Clinton of New York for Vice- 
President. This was the beginning of the 
Congressional caucus nominations which 
continued until the time of Jackson. It 
was, however, but the nationalizing of a 
practice that had grown up in several 
States, by which the members of the 
Legislatures in their respective party cau- 
cuses had named candidates for State 
offices and Congressmen, and sometimes 
indicated the choice of the State for Presi- 
dent. The Federalists made no open nomi- 
nations, but their leaders united on 
Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina for 
President and Rufus King of New York 
for Vice-President. The election showed 
the complete collapse of the Federalist 
party. Jefferson and Clinton had 162 
electoral votes, while Pinckney and King 
had but 14. 

The early custom had been for the Vice- 
President to follow as President. Adams 
had been Vice-President under Washing- 
ton, and Jefferson under Adams. But as 
Jefferson's second term approached its 
close there were indications that he pre- 
ferred his Secretary of State, James Madi- 
son, for his successor. There was some 
demurring in Virginia where the friends 
of James Monroe, feeling that he had not 
been treated fairly, urged him for the 
presidency. The Congressional caucus, 

however, was controlled by the friends of 
Madison, and nominated him for Presi- 
dent, re-nominating George Clinton for 
Vice-President. There was considerable 
ill feeling, especially in Virginia, where 
the "Quids," led by John Randolph of 
Roanoke, for a time threatened a serious 
defection. The trouble, however, was al- 
layed by the influence of Jefferson, who 
arranged that Monroe should enter the 
Cabinet as Secretary of State, and thus 
be in line as Madison's successor, accord- 
ing to the new order of promotion. The 
Federalists again informally accepted 
Pinckney and King as candidates without 
nomination, and made a desperate rally 
to regain power. The result was a slight 
gain, as they had 47 electoral votes to 122 
for Madison. 

Like some other Presidents since, who 
have been chosen in deference to the 
wishes of their predecessors, Madison did 
not measure up to the expectations of his 
friends. He was greater in constructive 
than in executive ability. Constitutionally 
a man of peace, he was confronted by con- 
ditions of war, and his administration 
seemed on the point of failure when a 
number of the younger element in Con- 
gress, led by Henry Clay, John C. Cal- 
houn, William H. Crawford and Felix 
Grundy, forced him into a more active 
policy, including a declaration of war 
against England — a war, however, for 
which the country was absolutely unpre- 
pared, and in which it was saved from 
utter disgrace only by the heroism of its 
improvised navy, and the brilliant vic- 
tory of the volunteers under Andrew Jack- 
son at New Orleans. 

Madison was, however, re-nominated in 
1812 by the Congressional caucus, though 
the discontent in his own party was so 
great that fifty members absented them- 
selves. George Clinton, after serving 
nearly eight years as Vice-President, had 
died in office and been buried at Wash- 
ington, whence his remains were removed 


1 9 1 

to New York one hundred years later. So 
the caucus nominated John Langdon of 
New Hampshire, the first president pro 
tem. of the Senate, for Vice-President, but 
he declined and a second caucus named 
Elbridge Gerry of "gerrymandering" 
fame in Massachusetts. 

The re-nomination of Madison was fol- 
lowed by the first "bolt" in our national 
politics. The Republican members of the 
New York Legislature nominated their 
party leader in the State, DeWitt Clinton, 
as an opposition candidate. The Federal- 
ists made no nomination for President, 
but at a conference the leaders agreed to 
support Clinton and named Jared Inger- 
soU of Pennsylvania for Vice-President. 

Thus the Republican party was divided, 
with the Federalists generally supporting 
Clinton. But the war he had been so 
averse to waging rallied to support Madi- 
son and he was elected by a vote of 122 to 
89. DeWitt Clinton afterward took part 
in the organization of the Whig party, and 
as Governor of New York State achieved 
a national reputation and wonderfully 
aided the development of his own State 
and of the great West by the construction 
of the Erie Canal. 

It is interesting to note in regard to the 
"war of 1812" that owing to the slowness 
of communication in those days, some of 
the events of the greatest political impor- 
tance connected with it actually took 
place after the treaty of peace had been 
signed. The signatures were affixed De- 
cember 24, 1814. The Hartford Conven- 
tion was then in session, and early in 
January passed the resolutions denounc- 
ing the war, which sealed the fate of the 
Federalists. Under a proclamation of 
President Madison, January 12 was ob- 
served as a day of fasting and prayer for 
peace, and more than all, on January 8, 
General Jackson, with 7,000 volunteers, 
defeated 10,000 British veterans, and won 
the battle of New Orleans, which victory 
made him President later on. 

While the two elections of James Mon- 
roe have, because of the lack of opposi- 
tion, been termed the "era of good feel- 
ing," his path to the first nomination was 
by no means easy. He was not personal- 
ly popular. William H. Crawford, a Sena- 
tor from Georgia, was an aggressive 
candidate, and the Congre.ssional caucus 
for nominating was already so unpopular 
that only 58 of the 141 Republican mem- 
bers attended on the first call. The in- 
fluence of Jefferson and Madison, how- 
ever, brought 118 to a second meeting, 
and Monroe, through the same influence, 
obtained eleven majority over Crawford. 
Daniel D. Tompkins of New York was 
named for Vice-President. 

For a time the discontent seemed omi- 
nous. Public meetings were held in various 
parts of the country denouncing "King 
Caucus that seeks to control the people in 
the selection of their highest oflScers." At 
several of these meetings bitter addresses 
were made by Roger B. Taney, afterward 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Had 
there been a strong opposition party, 
Monroe might have been defeated ; but the 
Federalists were so utterly discredited by 
the part some of their leaders had taken 
at the Hartford Convention that their 
open assistance would have been an in- 
jury to any candidate. The result was 
that no nomination was made against 
Monroe, and no national contest waged. 
The presidential electors of Connecticut, 
Delaware and Massachusetts, 34 in all, 
cast their votes for Rufus King of New 
York and Monroe received the remaining 
183 — of which Indiana furnished three. 

This State had adopted a Constitution 
in June, 1816, and the Legislature had 
chosen presidential electors later on; but 
it was not admitted into the Union until 
December 17. At first an animated dis- 
cussion was held as to whether the votes 
should be counted, and the two houses of 
Congress separated to enable the House 
of Representatives to settle the question 



1 6 

of eligibility. No action was taken, how- 
ever, but when the two houses again met 
the result was announced, including the 
vote of Indiana, which thus cast her first 
presidential vote for a Jeffersonian Re- 
publican candidate. 

Madison retired to his farm in Virginia 
and interested himself in agricultural pur- 
suits. He took no active part in politics, 
but when the South Carolina nullifiers 
were quoting his Kentucky and Virginia 
resolutions of 1798 in justification of their 
nullification and secession doctrines, he 
wrote several powerful letters to demon- 
strate the fallacy of their reasoning. He 
died six days before the Fourth of July, 

Monroe made John Quincy Adams his 
Secretary of State. During his adminis- 
tration of eight years, two moderately 
protective tariffs were passed, Florida 
was annexed, the first slavery conflict was 
adjusted by the Missouri Compromise, 
and the famous "Monroe Doctrine" in re- 
gard to European interference with 
America was promulgated. It was a 
period of recovery from war and of gen- 
eral growth and prosperity. Naturally 
cautious and conservative, Monroe had 
aroused no personal antagonisms during 
his first term. A general assent to the 
principle of two terms shut out ambitious 
competitors in his own party, and the 
utter disintegration of the Federalists had 
destroyed outside opposition. The regu- 
lar congressional caucus was called in 
1820, but so few attended it that no nomi- 
nation was made, and Monroe repeated 
the experience of Washington in securing 
a unanimous electoral vote — with the ex- 
ception of one — without either nomina- 
tion or election contest. Tompkins was 
re-elected Vice-President. 

In this election, following the Indiana 
precedent, the electoral vote of Missouri 
was counted, the State having adopted its 
constitution, though not having been ad- 
mitted into the Union. 

Unlike some modern statesmen, Monroe 
had served his country so unselfishly that 
he had absorbed his private fortune, and 
he left the oflSce of the presidency without 
means of support. For a time he served 
as justice of the peace in Virginia, and 
then found a home with his son-in-law in 
New York, where he died July 4, 1831. He 
was buried without ostentation, and his 
grave was left unmarked until a few years 

The presidential campaign of 1824 was 
a personal rather than a political contest. 
All the candidates were members of the 
Republican party, and there Avas no 
declaration of principles, as it was as- 
sumed that any of them would carry out 
the policy of previous administrations. 
While many candidates were discussed, 
only six were favorably presented. They 
were named by mass meetings and State 
Legislatures, and one, William H. Craw- 
ford, by the discredited Congressional 
caucus. Of the six, DeWitt Clinton of 
New York, who had run against Monroe 
in 1816, withdrew, and John C. Calhoun 
was transferred to the list for Vice-Presi- 
dent. The four that remained through the 
campaign were John Quincy Adams, Sec- 
retary of State; William H. Crawford, 
Secretary of the Treasury; Henry Clay, 
who had been Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, and Andrew Jackson, 
who had been United States Representa- 
tive and Senator, and Supreme Court 
Judge in his State, but who, above all, was 
"the Hero of New Orleans." 

The contest did not develop any great 
bitterness, and resulted in no choice for 
President, though Calhoun was almost 
unanimously elected Vice-President. The 
electoral vote stood : Jackson, 99 ; Adams, 
84 ; Crawford, 41 ; Clay, 37. The election 
accordingly went to the House, as between 
the three highest candidates. There the 
friends of Clay helped to elect Adams. 
Clay was made Secretary of State, and 
the Jackson men charged that there had 


19 16 

been a "deal" in connection with the elec- 
tion. The charge was denied and is not 
now believed to have been well founded. 
But the bitterness aroused made a lasting 
break between Jackson and Clay, though 
both still belonged to the same political 
party. In this election the vote of Indiana 
both in the Electoral College and in the 
House of Representatives was cast for the 
idolized hero of New Orleans, Andrew 

The administration of John Quincy 
Adams conformed to the highest type of 
statesmanship. He treated the office as a 
public trust and not as either a personal 
or party perquisite. He made only two 
dismissals from office, and both for good 
cause. He favored internal improvements 
more than did his predecessors, but that 
was because the opening and developing 
of the West had created greater need for 
them. In fact, Jackson, when in Con- 
gress, by his votes sustained measures the 
same in principle. It should not be for- 
gotten that John Quincy Adams was not 
a Federalist, but a consistent and earnest 
supporter of Jefferson and his policies. 
Soon after his retirement from the Presi- 
dency he was elected to the House of Rep- 
resentatives, where he continued to serve 
his country until his death in 1848. He 
literally died in service, having been 
stricken with apoplexy at his seat in the 

The presidential campaign of 1828 be- 
gan almost as soon as Adams had been 
inaugurated, when the Legislature of Ten- 
nessee presented the name of Jackson as 
his successor. Criticisms of Adams' ad- 
ministration revived much of the asperi- 
ties and resentments of the old Republican 
and Federalist campaigns. Mass meet- 
ings and resolutions of Legislatures fol- 
lowed one another in rapid succession, on 
the one hand urging the election of Jack- 
son and on the other recommending the 
re-election of Adams. 

The campaign soon developed into a 
contest between the old party leaders who 
had managed affairs, chosen the candi- 
dates and held the offices, and a newer, 
more uncouth, but more vigorous element 
that had been developed with the growing 

The name Republican was still retained 
by all, but with qualifying adjectives. The 
supporters of Adams called themselves 
National Republicans, while many of those 
of Jackson, probably having never heard 
of the obnoxious societies thirty or forty 
years before, took the name "Democratic- 
Republican." There were, however, no 
national conventions, no platforms of 
principles, no declarations of policy. The 
contest, like that of 1824, was personal, 
and the more common designations were 
"Adams men," or "Jackson men." The 
Jackson men won by an electoral vote of 
178 to 83, and Calhoun was elected Vice- 
President on the same ticket. Indiana had 
cast her vote for Jackson and Calhoun. 

Verification of the statement that po- 
litical alignments during that period were 
more personal than partisan is found in 
the fact that Indiana gave a majority for 
Jackson in three successive presidential 
elections. In 1824 the popular vote of In- 
diana was 7,343 for Jackson, 5,315 for 
Clay, 3,095 for Adams. In 1828 the vote 
was recorded 22,237 for Jackson, 17,652 
for Adams. In 1832 Jackson had 31,552 
and Clay 15,472. When, four years later, 
in 1836, the contest was between Jackson's 
favorite, Martin Van Buren, and William 
Henry Harrison, the latter carried the 
State quite decisively — 41,281 for Harri- 
son and 32,480 for Van Buren. The same 
candidates were pitted against one an- 
other in 1840, and Harrison's majority 
over his competitor was greater than in 
the preceding election, the vote being 65,- 
362 for Harrison and 51,695 for Van 
Buren. The fact that General Harrison 
had been Territorial Governor of Indiana 
prior to its admission into the Union 


doubtless had much to do with this par- 
tiality for the military candidate. The 
fact that Van Buren was "Jackson's man" 
in both of these elections did not have 
sufficient weight with the voting element 
to secure for him a majority of the State's 
electorate. In 1824 Jackson carried the 
State by a plurality of only 1,928, while 
four years later his majority over Adams 
was 4,585. In 1832 Jackson beat Clay 
by more than two to one — to be exact, by 
a majority of 16,080. The increase of the 
vote at each succeeding presidential elec- 
tion bears eloquent testimony to the re- 
markable growth of population of the 

The election of Jackson was partly the 
result and partly the cause of a thorough 
revolution in the politics of the country. 
It was the culmination of a change in po- 
litical conditions that had been going on 
since the foundation of the government, 
but more especially since 1810, when the 
younger element took control of Madison's 
administration. In the older States suf- 
frage had originally been limited to prop- 
erty qualifications. In the new States it 
was granted to every white male of twen- 
ty-one. In earlier years presidential elec- 
tors were chosen by the State Legisla- 
tures, but the broadening of the suffrage 
had led to a demand that the electors be 
chosen directly by the people; so that in 
1828 they were so elected in all the States 
but one, and that one. South Carolina. In 
the earlier years, candidates were named 
by persons already holding office, or by 
cliques of self-constituted leaders, but 
Jackson's nomination had been started in 
mass meetings. In the earlier years office 
holding had been confined to the cultured, 
aristocratic class, and though the term 
was not employed there was virtually a 
merit or civil service system of terms of 
office. Jackson's followers openly de- 
manded a share in the offices, and many of 
the more active came on to Washington to 
secure them. New men had also been 

elected to Congress and the various State 
offices, and they were present everywhere, 
to the horror and disgust of the old party 
leaders, who spoke derisively of the "tri- 
umphant reign of king mob" and the "mil- 
lennium of the minnows" — small-fry. To 
such there seemed a fearful chasm be- 
tween the life of 1820 and that of 1829. 
As one disgusted "patriot" expressed it, 
"Political affairs had fallen into the hands 
of John Holmes, Felix Grundy and the 
devil." There was a general change of 
federal office holders all over the country. 
The test was not of party faith or allegi- 
ance, for all were Republicans. No Fed- 
eralist had held an office for a dozen years. 
The shibboleth for the incumbent applied 
alike to the country postmaster and the 
highest federal appointee, was: "Is he a 
Jackson man?" If "Yes," he stayed; if 
"No," he left or was removed. The prin- 
ciple, "To the victors belong the spoils," 
which Jackson proclaimed and vigorously 
applied, has no doubt been grievously mis- 
used to the great detriment of the coun- 
try, but it wrought a benefit at the time 
by bringing the government into closer 
sympathy with the mass of the people. 

The truth is that in 1829 the people first 
assumed control of the governmental ma- 
chinery, which up to that time had been 
held in a sort of trust for them by political 
leaders; and the administration which 
then came into power was the first in our 
history which represented the people 
without restriction and which, therefore, 
presented not only the virtues but the 
faults of the people. Hence, in every es- 
sential this administration was Demo- 
cratic — the people ruling. 

This was the origin of the great Demo- 
cratic party of the nation. It sprang, in- 
deed, as did the Whig party a little later, 
from the old Republican party of Jeffer- 
son, and for a time bore the hyphenated 
name, "Democratic-Republican." 

The formal assumption of the single 
name, "Democrat," did not, however, take 


place for several years — not, indeed, until 
most of the old Jeffersonian Republicans 
had retired from active political life. In 
the campaign of 1832 the Democratic-Re- 
publicans supported Jackson, and the Na- 
tional Republicans Henry Clay. An Anti- 
Masonic party was also in the field, with 
William Wirt of Maryland as its candi- 
date. Jackson received 219 electoral 
votes ; Clay, 49 ; Wirt, 7, and South Caro- 
lina cast 11 for John Floyd of Virginia, 
who had not been a candidate. Wirt got 
his 7 votes from Vermont. 

In 1836 the Democratic-Republicans 
nominated Martin Van Buren, who had 
been Vice-President during Jackson's sec- 
ond term. The Anti-Masons and part of 
the Whigs named William Henry Harri- 
son; another portion of the Whigs nomi- 
nated Daniel Webster, and Judge Hugh 
L. White of Tennessee was put forward 
as an anti-Jackson Democratic-Repub- 
lican. The opposition to Van Buren con- 
solidated on one candidate in each State. 
The result was 170 for Van Buren, 113 for 
the other three, and South Carolina again 
casting her 11 votes for a man who had 
not been a candidate, William P. Mangrun 
of North Carolina. Indiana, unmindful of 
the fact that Van Buren was Jackson's 
choice, voted for William Henry Harrison. 

By 1840 the opposition to the Demo- 
cratic-Republicans had been consolidated 
into the Whig party. The former re- 
nominated Van Buren, and the latter 
again named Harrison. 

For popular enthusiasm the campaign 
resembled that of 1828, only this time the 
enthusiasm was for the Whigs. Harrison 

had 234 and Van Buren 60 electoral votes, 
the former carrying every Northern State 
except Illinois and New Hampshire — In- 
diana thus going with the Whigs. 

The National Convention of 1844 made 
the first formal use of the name "Demo- 
crat" for the party really formed by Jack- 
son sixteen years before, and that name 
has ever since been retained. It popular- 
ly, and very properly, reverts back to 
Jackson's administration. Samuel J. Til- 
den, moreover, continued the use of the 
name Democratic-Republican so long as 
he was chairman of his party's State com- 
mittee prior to his election as Governor of 
New York in 1874. In the following pages 
the Democratic party of Indiana will be 
treated as dating from 1828, though as a 
matter of fact Jefferson will ever be 
cherished as the founder and exponent of 
American Democracy. Although it has 
sometimes severely suffered from the folly 
or selfishness of leaders it had trusted, and 
although it has changed the details of its 
policy to meet changing conditions in the 
country's development, it has ever re- 
mained fundamentally true to Jefferson's 
liberal teachings and Jackson's unfalter- 
ing confidence in the common people. 

History has been termed collated biog- 
raphy. As this introductory chapter has 
told of the political actors and their deeds 
in leading up to the formation of the Na- 
tional Democratic party, so the history of 
Indiana's Democracy will be prefaced by 
a sketch of the activities of the political 
leaders during the twelve years that In- 
diana did her part in the old Jeffersonian 
Republican Party. 


[Chapter II.] 



HE woi'k of the pioneers was 
the work of conquest. It was 
a struggle with matter whose 
subservience to mind was to 
bring Hfe into soHtude and 
make homes for future thou- 
sands. It was a hand-to-hand 
conflict with nature, who, with her tempt- 
ing hoards just beyond reach, has set men 
on the long and perilous road toward 
perfection. Their mission was peaceful 
and constructive, their immediate goal a 
mere existence. Moved by visions of ulti- 
mate victory, they cheerfully made every 
sacrifice and dedicated their lives to the 
long and doubtful struggle. Making 
roads, draining swamps and clearing land 
for agricultural purposes made the years 
one long stretch of hardship and toil. The 
seasons brought no respite, but added, 
each in turn, to the difficulties yet to over- 
come. The conquest of the soil, the dis- 
arming of unseen hostile forces were for 
them gigantic enterprises against which 
their meager equipment could but slowly 
avail. Meadow and swamp were infested 
with venomous snakes and poisonous in- 
sects. Malaria and insidious fevers un- 
dermined the health of the strongest. 
Physical sufl'ering and unrelieved pain 
aroused terrors in the most confident and 
the bravest. For every inch of ground the 
wilderness exacted its toll of human 
energj' and life. Through pain and suf- 
fering, childhood, youth and maturity 
learned stern lessons and the irrevocable 
laws of nature. 

An accurate delineation of the persever- 
ance and the determination of the pioneers 
and their faith in final success would re- 

veal a heroism as great as was ever dis- 
played on the battlefield. Forest, swamp 
and unbroken prairie led them to conflicts 
as fierce as any knight ever waged in sup- 
port of his honor and his prowess. Prac- 
tically exiled from all known civilization, 
they worked unselfishly for the develop- 
ment of territory that only future genera- 
tions could enjoy. Money, as a medium of 
exchange, was almost unknown. The 
products of the field and dairy went beg- 
ging for a market. The housewife was 
forced to spin and weave in order to pro- 
vide clothing for her family. The forced 
existence in a narrow sphere with its lim- 
ited activities was not without its advan- 
tages. While it exacted the most strenu- 
ous physical toil, it sharpened the wits 
and challenged the intellect to keener 
action. Close contact with nature and the 
stress of spiritual conflicts developed char- 
acter and heart as easier conditions could 
never have done. Mutual helpfulness and 
unselfishness relieved the rigors of priva- 
tion and softened the grief of sickness and 
death. Never in the history of mankind 
has ideal communism become so nearly a 
reality: a man's word was his bond; a 
verbal compact stood above the medium of 
legal execution. Piety was a common vir- 
tue and the love of God the lever of moral- 

A fine sense of citizenship and civic duty 
grew out of the individual's attitude 
toward work. Every blow of the ax in- 
voluntarily set echoes ringing in strong 
and loyal hearts. The love of country 
grew with the consciousness of every hard- 
won possession. Every struggle with 
matter proclaimed an inner growth that 



1 6 

meant new life and new responsibilities. 
The pioneers grew in numbers, in strength 
and in comprehension. From actual ex- 
perience they learned the rules of incipient 
statehood. They anticipated the needs of 
future society and produced men as strong 
and capable as the world has ever seen. 
Community interests resolutely met tested 
them as social, economic and moral forces. 
Time has proven their loyalty as citizens 
and established their record as heroes and 
benefactors of mankind. 

Need any one wonder that these people, 
undergoing hardships incomprehensible 
to the present generation, became strong- 
ly attached to one another and refused to 
permit differences of opinion as to what 
was then termed "politics" to disturb their 
peaceful relations? 


The simple life of the Indiana pioneers 
was many years ago happily described in 
an enterprising newspaper published in 
the southeastern part of the State. "There 
were no churches in those days," wrote 
the author. "The meetings were held at 
private homes. The people then did not 
go to church to display their finery. The 
men at these private home meetings wore 
jeans, while the women wore flannel. A 
calico dress was a rarity indeed. The 
preachers were muscular Christians, who 
pointed men to salvation through love of 
their race rather than because they re- 
ceived a good salary for doing so. Their 
salaries were but $50 to $75, and on these 
meager sums they endured great hard- 
ships with Christian fortitude. Often 
they sacrificed their lives in their work. 
In those days the Indian squaws took a 
deep interest in the household affairs of 
the whites and they made the lives of the 
housewives miserable by begging for cu- 
cumbers. The houses of the first settlers 
were log cabins, with generally but one 
room. The man who could live in a hewed 
log house was considered an aristocrat. 

These rough homes boasted of but few 
window lights and greased paper was used 
instead of glass." 


Many characterizations of the early set- 
tlers have been penned and printed. Glow- 
ing tributes are the rule; carping criti- 
cisms the exception. Among those who 
have enjoyed excellent opportunities to 
institute comparisons there is substantial 
agreement that as a portrayal of pioneer 
life in Indiana this picture, drawn by 
David Turpie, stands unrivalled and un- 
excelled : 

"What may be called the modern history 
of our State began on the day when Gen- 
eral Clark set out from the falls of the 
Ohio upon his famous expedition against 
Vincennes. That expedition and its for- 
tunate result first revealed to the people 
of Virginia and the Atlantic States the 
resources of the immense region, well- 
watered, fertile and arable, that lay in the 
territory of the Northwest. The country 
was not known before, but it was un- 
noticed. The exodus, long continued, 
which followed this revelation, attested 
its value and reality. The migration to 
Indiana during the closing years of the 
eighteenth and the beginning of the next 
century, in some respects has had few 
parallels in the world's history. It was 
not like that of the ancient Phenicians to 
Carthage and northern Africa, or that of 
the Greeks to the shores of the Euxine, 
or of the Romans to Spain and Britain — 
still less did it resemble that of the Eng- 
lish to the tidewater regions of Massachu- 
setts, Virginia and the Carolinas. 

"All these colonists in their removal still 
retained and enjoyed the means of com- 
munication and commercial intercourse 
with the kindred and countrymen whom 
they had left behind them. But the immi- 
grants to the country now called Indiana, 
in that early period spoken of, having 
passed the last military outpost on their 
way and gone thence into the depths of 
the wilderness, were as wholly severed 
from the world as Columbus when he 
sailed upon his first voyage into the un- 



known waters of the Western ocean. They 
were in a condition of extreme, almost 
total, isolation. They made their home in 
the midst of a vast forest, for the most 
part unexplored and uninhabited save by 
roving bands of Indians, equipped with 
weapons far more deadly than those of 
the chiefs and warriors who, more than a 
hundred years before, had attempted with 
their clubs, bows and arrows, to exter- 
minate the white settlements in the val- 
leys of the Potomac and Connecticut. 
Whether the pioneer settler reaped, plowed 
or planted, his rifle must be within reach. 
Solitude seldom broken, danger always 
imminent, shadowed his daily life and 

"Plutarch observes that those who 
found prosperous States and communities 
are more worthy of praise and com- 
mendation than any other benefactors of 
the human race. Yet it has been some- 
what the fashion, both in writing and con- 
versation, to decry the pioneers and early 
settlers of our State as being generally 
coarse, ignorant, lawless and violent. The 
founders of Indiana were, for the most 
part, immigrants from the thirteen origin- 
al States, and they came hither in nearly 
equal proportion from the North and 
South. They were the best element of 
that hardy population which inhabited the 
long line of the old Colonial frontier ex- 
tending from Maine to Georgia. Some of 
them were men of intellectual attainments 
and of classic education, everywhere wel- 
comed and recognized as leaders in the 
new community. The much greater num- 
ber were actuated by one dominant pur- 
pose, one salient ambition; this was to 
make for themselves and for their house- 
hold larger and better homes. These pio- 
neers in emigration, leaving their former 
domiciles, did not leave behind them their 
respect for law and order, their reverence 
for religion, or their love of civil and 
political liberty. All these they carried 
with them upon their journey. The early 
legislation and the first constitution of our 
State show in every line and sentence of 
the venerable text how thoroughly they 
were imbued with those principles. 

"These predecessors in our goodly her- 
itage had the courage to leave a land of 
comparative comfort and security; forti- 
tude to endure the hardships and dangers 
incident to such departure, self-reliance 

constant and unwavering, a fixity of pur- 
pose and integrity of life, which upheld 
their hands and hopes in what they had 
undertaken. They were a thoughtful 
people, slow to anger, quick neither to 
take nor to give offense, but prompt to 
resent insult or injury when offered. They 
were diligent in their work — but took their 
time in doing it ; they depended more than 
we do upon the morrow for its completion, 
but they did complete it. They were very 
frank in conversation, kindly in social in- 
tercourse. Their manner of speech was 
plain, direct — to use their own phrase, 
home-spoken, but without coarseness or 

"Many of these patriarchs had unique 
personal histories and gifts of description 
and narration quite remarkable; and if 
their stories were long, they were eagerly 
listened to, on account of the manifest 
good faith and verity of the narrator. 
They were a very religious community, yet 
without the least trace of superstition. 
Possessed of lively imaginative powers, 
they might have peopled the wide expanse 
of wood and waters around them with 
elves and fairies, nymphs and naiads ; but 
they looked in the woods only for game 
or Indians, and saw only what they looked 

"Nevertheless, they walked not by 
sight alone. They cherished a faith sin- 
cere and simple, unobscured by the mirage 
of the higher criticism. Nearly all of 
them belonged to some church communion ; 
there was much difference of opinion on 
these subjects, but this caused no breach 
of brotherly kindness or of neighborly 
good will and courtesy. The creed and 
form of worship were as free as thought 
itself. Not a few of these men in the 
vanguard of civilization were very illiter- 
ate, being able neither to read nor write ; 
yet they were not uneducated. They had 
learned some of the lessons of life and 
knew them better than the savants of 
Oxford or Cambridge, or the Pilgrim 
Fathers, with all their erudition. They 
had in a very free way wrought out their 
destiny in the wilderness. Mental, moral, 
political independence was their birth- 

"Our forefathers dwelling under the 
sky of the West were a chosen people who, 
without the visible guidance of the cloud 
or pillar, made a Christian solution of the 

(23 ) 


- 1 

problem that for ages had embroiled their 
ancestors in bloodiest warfare. Even in 
the infancy of this commonwealth or in 
the days of its youth and inexperience, 
there was no religious test either for office 
or the franchise. No Baptist was ban- 
ished, no Quaker was scourged or held in 
durance, but every one worshiped God 
according to the dictates of his own con- 
science. If any man forbore either to be- 
lieve or worship, he incurred thereby no 
statutory pains or penalties. The founders 
of our State passed beyond the line of 
mere religious toleration; they eliminated 
from their form of policy both persecution 
and its victim, and provided that martyr- 
dom should be a thing impossible. They 
relied upon the utmost freedom of speech 
and opinion as the best safeguard of truth 
and the surest correction of error. They 
gave no credence to the doctrine that the 
growth of religious sentiment should be 
accompanied by some sort of proscription 
of dissent, or that as faith waxed stronger, 
charity should cease or fail. Greater was 
the charity of our fathers, even as their 
faith more abounded. 

"The ancient provisions of the ordi- 
nance of 1787, touching common school 
education and involuntary servitude, al- 
though for a long period the subjects of 
active controversy, were faithfully ad- 
hered to and loyally maintained. 

"In the beginning of our social and civil 
organization those who attended meetings 
of anj' kind always went armed. An aged 
judge, speaking of this, told me that in 
his youth the courtroom during term bore 
the appearance of a military post; wit- 
nesses, parties, jurymen and bystanders 
brought with them their guns and ac- 
coutrements. I have seen, several times, 
on the walls of old meeting houses, rem- 
nants of the wooden hooks, upon which, 
during the hours of worship, the rifles of 
those present were hung, loaded and 
primed, ready for instant use. These pre- 
cautions were taken against attack by the 
Indians, which was often sudden and un- 
expected. Still, a habit so constantly in 
use must have had a marked effect upon 
the m.anners of the people. It largely con- 
duced to the observance of the true 
civilities of life, to mutual respect and 
deference, whether in public or private in- 

"Among brave men thus equipped, who 
met together for any purpose, there was 
a savor of knightly bearing shown in the 
considerate regard paid to the feelings and 
wishes, even to the prejudices and pre- 
possessions, of their comrades and asso- 
ciates. Utterances of indiscretion and 
violence, in this armed presence were 
quietly suppressed; the cost of the feud 
was counted, its consequences were 
weighed and measured, restrained and 

"The native chivalry of the frontiers- 
man, though it may have been unpolished 
and uncouth, had yet a real origin and 
meaning. Its influence was felt percept- 
ibly long after the custom of bearing arms, 
once so general, had become obsolete. 

"In that primitive age there was an 
innate honest simplicity of manners, as 
of thought and action. Fraud, wrongdoing 
and injustice were denounced as they are 
at present ; they were also discredited, dis- 
honored, and branded with an ostracism 
more severe than that of Athens. Wealth 
acquired by such means could not evade, 
and was unable to conceal, the stigma that 
attached to the hidden things of dis- 

"The moral atmosphere of the time was 
clear and bracing ; it repelled specious pre- 
tensions, resisted iniquity and steadily re- 
jected the evil which calls itself good. 
Moreover, there never has been a people 
who wrought into the spirit of their public 
enactments the virtues of their private 
character more completely than the early 
settlers of Indiana. We have grown up 
in the shadow of their achievements; 
these need not be forgotten in the splendor 
of our own." 


As already indicated, party relationship 
was in the "good old days" subject to sud- 
den and frequent changes. In the absence 
of clearly defined appellations, men who 
"dabbled in politics" were designated as 
Adams men, Jacksonites, Harrisonites, 
Smithites or Jonesites — dependent on who 
was up for assignment to public position. 
So confusing had become the party labels 
temporarily and shiftingly applied that a 



critical contributor to one of the more 
prominent newspapers of that period let 
himself loose in this fashion : 

"I have been pestered of late by many 
new and uncommon phrases and some old 
words with new meanings to them, which 
many of the candidates have lugged into 
their handbills and public speeches; such 
as 'Jackson Republican,' 'Whole-Hog Jack- 
son man,' 'Republican of the Jefferson 
School,' 'Patriot,' 'Hero,' 'Statesman,' 
'Tried Republican,' 'Federalist.' I have 
taken great pains to find out the meaning 
of these words and phrases and I believe 
I have at last nearly mastered the subject. 
The following is the vocabulary of the 
words in their present acceptation : 

Jackson Republican: An old Federalist who 
supports Gen. Jackson for the office which he has 
gotten or hopes to get. 

Whole-Hog Jackson Man: A fiery tempered 
person who has no opinion of his own, but votes, 
praises, censures and turns just as he is bidden 
by his county caucus. 

Republican of Jefferson School: A man who 
always joins the strong party and swears he never 

Patriot: A man who can live by his own trade, 
but wants the public to support him. 

Hero: Anybody who has fought a duel. 

Statesman: A man who knows how many 
States there are in the Union and can tell their 

Federalist: Everybody who is against my elec- 

The Party: Five or six office hunters in each 
county who teach the sovereigns how they ought 
to vote. 

The Good Cause: My cause. My plan of get- 
ting into office. 

"But the phrase which perplexed me is 
'Tried Republican.' When I hear a man 
say he means to vote for a 'tried Re- 
publican' I am astonished and disposed to 
ask him what he will have him tried for 
— treason, felony or breach of the peace? 

"When the new-fangled doctrine of 
nullification shall be attempted to be put 
into practice we shall no doubt see many 
'tried Republicans' and not a few of them 
condemned and executed." 


As far back as 1799 the General As- 
sembly of the Northwest Territory met at 
Cincinnati in the month of September and 
was addressed by Governor St. Clair. He 
called attention to the necessity of mak- 
ing provision for and the regulation of the 
lives and morals of the present and rising 
generation in the territory and the neces- 
sity of providing for the repression of 
vice and immorality throughout the big 
stretch of country. He declared that steps 
should be immediately taken for the pro- 
tection of virtue and innocence, "for," said 
he, "the security of property and the 
punishment of crime is a sublime employ- 
ment. Every aid in my power," he con- 
tinued, "will be afforded, and I hope we 
shall bear in mind that the character and 
deportment of the people and their happi- 
ness here and hereafter depend very much 
upon the spirit and genius of their laws." 
Among the laws enacted as the result of 
this appeal was an act to stop Sabbath- 
breaking, another to stop profane swear- 
ing, dueling, cock fighting, running horses 
on the public highways and gambling at 
billiards, cards, dice, shovelboard, etc. 
The whipping post and the pillory were 

[Chapter III.] 


(December 11, 1816) 


EARING on this subject, vol- 
umes have been written and 
printed, with elaborate details 
of incidents illustrative of the 
trials and tribulations of the 
early settlers. All of these 
writings and narratives are 
exceedingly interesting and instructive. 
In epitomized form the story has, in the 
judgment of the writer, never been more 
comprehensively told than was done by 
Senator Daniel W. Voorhees in a notable 
address delivered by him on the Fourth of 
July, 1883. The readers of this volume 
will be delighted with the illuminating 
manner in which that famous orator nar- 
rated the circumstances and conditions un- 
der which Indiana was admitted into the 
Union in the year 1816: 

"It was on the fourth of July in the year 
1800 when 'The. Indiana Territory' was 
organized under Congressional enactment, 
embracing 'all that part of the territory 
of the United States northwest of the Ohio 
river which lies to the westward of a line 
beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the 
mouth of the Kentucky river, and runnmg 
thence to Fort Recovery, and thence north 
until it shall intersect the territorial line 
between the United States and Canada.' 
The region thus deiined by boundaries 
comprised all of the States of Indiana and 
Illinois, and the larger portion of the State 
of Michigan, and yet within all this vast 
domain the civilized population was esti- 
mated at but 4,875, less than the basis of 
1,000 voters. It was the organization of 
a giant wilderness through whose mighty 
depths stalked the painted and plumed bar- 
barian in the haughty supremacy of his 
power. Here and there a feeble and scant 

ray of civilization had penetrated this 
widespread abode of savage life. Like a 
small lamp in a great darkness, the settle- 
ment at Vincennes had been throwing its 
feeble but steady and serene light on the 
surrounding night for nearly a hundred 
years. According to reliable history, civ- 
ilized man first took up his abode at the 
old post in 1710, sixty-five years before the 
first guns of the Revolution were fired, and 
ninety years before the Indiana Territory 
was created by act of Congress. But there 
had been no growth or expansion at the 
post, as the meager population of the en- 
tire territory in 1800 amply proves. It 
had been as stationary as its name implied. 
In 1805 the Territory of Michigan was or- 
ganized and separated from the Indiana 
Territory, and finally, by act of Congress, 
February 3, 1809, the Indiana Territory 
was again divided by setting off all that 
part lying west of the Wabash River and 
a direct line drawn from the said Wabash 
River and Post Vincennes due north to the 
territorial line between the United States 
and Canada, to be known as the Territory 
of Illinois. In 1808, a year prior to this 
final division, we find an enumeration of 
the white population of the Indiana Terri- 
tory, there being about nineteen thousand 
inhabitants in that portion which is now 
the State of Indiana, and about eleven 
thousand in that portion now the State of 

"The early stages of progress in the 
Northwest were not swift nor easy; they 
were slow and painful and the life of the 
pioneer was full of toil, privation and 
peril. Emigration from the old States 
was reluctant to seek new fields of enter- 
prise, environed as they were by every 
danger which fact or fancy could present 
to the mind. Settlers came in slowly and 
tediously over roads of their own construc- 
tion. When Indiana was admitted as a 



-19 16 

State into the Union, after sixteen years 
of important territorial government, after 
the battles of Fort Harrison and Tippe- 
canoe had been fought, after the battle of 
New Orleans, and the treaty of peace with 
Great Britain at the close of the war of 
1812, with the Indian titles nearly all ex- 
tinguished, and the Mississippi River and 
all its tributaries opened to the unmolested 
trade and commerce of the American peo- 
ple, she yet showed by a census then taken 
a population of only 63,897. There were 
but thirteen organized counties, and Knox 
headed the list with 8,068 inhabitants. 
Then came Franklin, Washington, Clark, 
Harrison, Wayne, Gibson, Dearborn, Jef- 
ferson, Switzerland, Perry, Posey and 
Warrick in the order I have named them. 

"And what a small, tame affair the first 
gubernatorial election appears to us as we 
look at it from this distance and compare 
it with some other Indiana elections which 
we have known! At a general election 
held on the first Monday in August, 1816, 
for Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Rep- 
resentative in Congress, members of the 
General Assembly and the various county 
officers, calling out a full vote, Jonathan 
Jennings received 5,211 votes and was 
elected Governor over Thomas Posey, who 
received 3,934 votes. With less than 10,- 
000 voters to persuade, and only thirteen 
county seats to visit, I am inclined to think 
that some of my friends in both parties 
would rather have had such a race for 
Governor than the one they are likely to 
be engaged in twelve months hence. 

"In the convention which framed the 
first constitution of Indiana there were 
forty-three members, and it is both curious 
and pleasant to find so many names in that 
body which have remained familiar to the 
people of Indiana at every stage of her 
subsequent history. Jonathan Jennings 
was its president and William Hendricks 
its secretary; each of whom soon after- 
ward served the infant State as Governor 
and as Senator in Congress. James Noble 
was also there, and Enoch McCarty, Rob- 
ert Hanna, John DePauw, John Badaliet. 
Samuel Milroy, Joseph Holman, David H. 
Maxwell and others, whose honored names 
adorn the annals of the State. A careful 
and competent historian of that period has 
spoken as follows of those who first here 
laid the foundations of a great and power- 
ful commonwealth : 

The convention that formed the first constitu- 
tion of Indiana was composed mainly of clear- 1 
minded, unpretending men of common sense, | 
whose patriotism was unquestionable and whose 
morals were fair. Their familiarity %vith the the- 
ories of the Declaration of American Indepen- 
dence; their territorial experience under the pro- 
visions of the ordinance of 1787, and their knowl- 
edge of the principles of the constitution of the j 
United States were sufficient, when combined, to 
lighten materially their labors in the great work 
of forming a constitution for a new State. . . . 
In the clearness and conciseness of its style, in the 
comprehensive and just provisions which it made 
for the maintenance of civil and religious liberty, 
in its mandates, which were designed to protect 
the rights of the people, collectively and individ- 
ually, and to provide for the public welfare, the 
constitution that was formed for Indiana in 1816 
was not inferior to any of the State constitutions 
which were in existence at that time. 

"And with this constitution for the 
guidance and welfare of her people, In- 
diana was admitted into the full fellowship 
of the Union December 11, 1816, and un- 
der these bright auspices began her un- 
paralleled career as a State. 

"There was but little reading matter in 
the pioneer settlements. The first news- 
paper in all that vast region now compris- 
ing Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wis- 
consin, was the Western Sun, at Vin- 
cennes, published by Elihu Stout. In its 
columns the young and the old of that day 
eagerly scanned the sayings and doings of 
those who were entrusted with public af- 
fairs. No other people are so deeply in- 
terested in good government as those who 
are not yet strong, rich and self-reliant. 
In consequence of this fact the inhabitants 
of the frontiers at every stage of Ameri- 
can history have been vigilant obsen'ers 
of their public servants." 


It is quite evident from the data at hand 
that with the growth of population in In- 
diana during the sixteen years preceding 
its admission into the Union came a class 
of men eminently fitted to manage the af- 
fairs of the infant commonwealth and 
worthily to represent it in the halls of 

Excellent judgment appears to have 
been exercised by the electorate to choose 
men of high character and eminent ability 
to serve the State both at home and at 



Washington. Thus, a good beginning was 
made in the ministration of public affairs. 

As intelligently and comprehensively 
narrated by the painstaking State histo- 
rian, William Henry Smith, "an election 
was ordered for choosing delegates to 
frame and promulgate a constitution, and 
for the election of a Governor." The two 
opposing candidates for Governor were 
Thomas Posey and Jonathan Jennings, 
then a delegate in Congress. The election 
was held on the first Monday of August, 
and Mr. Jennings was elected Governor, 
Christopher Harrison Lieutenant-Govern- 
or, and William Hendricks member of 

The vote for Governor in 1816 stood : 


Jonathan Jennings 5,211 

Thomas Posey 3,934 

Total 9,145 


Christopher Harrison 6,570 

John Vawter 847 

Abel Finley 18 

John Johnson 14 

Davis Floyd 13 

Amos Lane 12 

Total 7,474 

Although the State was not finally ad- 
mitted into the Union until December 11, 
the first Legislature elected under the new 
constitution began its session on the 7th 
of November, when Jonathan Jennings 
took the oath of office as Governor. By the 
terms of the constitution Governors were 
elected for a term of three years, and the 
other State officers, with the exception of 
Lieutenant-Governor, were chosen by the 

Governor Jennings, in his opening mes- 
sage to the General Assembly, said : 

"The result of your deliberations will be 
considered as indicative of the future char- 
acter of the State, as well as of the future 
happiness of its citizens. The reputation 
of the State, as well as its highest inter- 
est, will require that a just and generous 

policy toward the general movement, and 
a due regard to the rights of its members 
respectively, should invariably have their 
proper influence. In the commencement 
of the State government the shackles of 
the colonial should not be forgotten in our 
limited exertions to prove, by happy ex- 
perience, that a uniform adherence to the 
first principles of our government, and a 
virtuous exercise of its powers, will best 
secure efficiency to its measures and sta- 
bility to its character. Without a frequent 
recurrence to those principles, the admin- 
istration of the government will impercep- 
tibly become more and more arduous, until 
the simplicity of our republican institu- 
tions may eventually be lost in dangerous 
expedients and political designs. Under 
every free government the happiness of 
the citizens must be identified with their 
morals; and while a constitutional exer- 
cise of their rights shall continue to have 
its due weight in the discharge of the du- 
ties required of the constitutional authori- 
ties of the State, too much attention can- 
not be bestowed to the encouragement and 
promotion of every moral virtue, and to 
the enactment of laws calculated to re- 
strain the vicious and pi'escribe punish- 
ment for every crime commensurate to its 
enormity. In measuring, however, to each 
crime its adequate punishment it will be 
well to recollect that the certainty of pun- 
ishment has generally the surest effect to 
prevent crime; while punishments unnec- 
essarily severe too often produce the ac- 
quittal of the guilty, and disappoint one 
of the great objects of legislation and good 
government. . . . The dissemination 
of useful knowledge will be indispensably 
necessary as a support of morals, and as 
a restraint of vice; and on this subject it 
will only be necessary to direct your atten- 
tion to the plan of education as prescribed 
by the constitution." 

Mr. Jennings served as Governor for 
six years, and during his administration 
the Legislature mainly directed its efforts 
to putting on the full habiliments of State- 
hood. Among its first duties was that of 
filling the other State offices and electing 
two members of the United States Senate. 
Robert A. New was elected Secretary of 
State, W. H. Lilly, Auditor, and Daniel C. 
Lane, Treasurer. James Noble and Wal- 


ler Taylor were chosen Senators. The In increasing the State's revenue the Gov- 
laws were codified and made applicable to ernor met with many difficulties. The ob- 
the State government. A number of laws jects of taxation were not numerous and 
were passed on various subjects; courts the great scarcity of money in the State 
were established and their jurisdiction de- made it difficult for the collector to realize 
fined, and the Bank of Vincennes was on the demands of the State upon the prop- 
adopted as a State bank and was author- erty that was assessed. In the next year 
ized to establish a number of branches, the problem had become so acute that Gov- 
Commissioners were also appointed to se- ernor Jennings said that in order to en- 
lect a site for the permanent capital of force the payments of the revenue of the 
the State. The slavery question continued State on the part of those charged with 
to give considerable concern. Notwith- the collections he recommended that all 
standing involuntary servitude had been suits connected therewith be instituted in 
forbidden by the ordinance of 1787, and the Harrison Circuit Court and that the 
again by the State constitution, slaves appointment of an Attorney-General be au- 
were openly held, and efforts were contin- thorized by law whose duty it should be to 
ued to introduce slavery under the dis- prosecute such cases, 
guise of apprentices. In his first message The second State election, in 1819, shows 
to the Legislature, Governor Jennings thus this result : 
referred to the subject : 


"I recommend to your consideration the 

propriety of providing by law, to prevent iT-"]. ''^""'"^.^ Hf 

more effectually any unlawful attempts to Christopher Harrison 2,007 

seize and carry into bondage persons of Samuel Carr 80 

color, legally entitled to their freedom ; ^^^er Allen i 

and, at the same time, as far as practica- yor LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR 
ble, to prevent those who rightfully owe 

service to the citizens of any other State ^^^''^ So°" '^'i^O 

or territory from seeking within the lim- '^°^^ DePauw 3,422 

its of this State a refuge from the posses- J^™^^ McKmght 5 

sion of their lawful owners. Such a meas- °«""'^ Pennington 2 

ure vdll tend to secure those who are free Christopher Harrison 2 

from any unlawful attempts (to enslave Abraham Markle 2 

them) and secure the rights of the citizens mu a.- j? • ^ i • 

of the other States and territories as far ^he question of mtemal improvements 

as ought reasonably be respected." also occupied the attention of the Legis- 

In a speech delivered by Governor Jen- ^^^ure during the administration of Gov- 
nings in the month of August, 1817, atten- ^^'^^ Jennings. The State was rapidly 
tion was directed to the need of greater ^"'"^ "P ^^^^ popu ation, but the lack of 
educational facilities in the State, the ne- "^^^"^ ^o transport the surplus products to 
cessity for a revision of the statutes, the "^^^^^^ ^^« delaying immigration. No 
need for the organization of the judiciary ^o^^s had been built anywhere in the 
and of a law to prevent the carrying into State, except a few that had only been 
bondage of persons of color residing in the cleared of the trees, and the settlements 
State and legally entitled to their freedom, were still largely confined to the neighbor- 
He also urged the necessity of raising the hood of water courses. In August, 1822, 
State's revenue to a sufficient amount to before the expiration of his second term, 
meet the expenses of the year and to pay Governor Jennings was elected to Con- 
the debt consequent upon holding the con- gress from the Second district, and the 
stitutional convention of the previous year, unexpired portion of his term as Governor 



19 16 

was filled by Lieutenant-Governor Ratliff 
Boon. Governor Jennings's resignation 
was dated September 12, 1822. 

It is vi'orthy of note that the first Con- 
gressman from the newly-admitted State 
of Indiana was William Hendricks, an 
older brother of the father of Thomas A. 
Hendricks, who in a later year (1860) be- 
came the chosen leader of the Indiana 
Democracy and remained such beyond 
cavil to the end of his life, the latter part 
of 1885. So satisfactorily did William 
Hendricks represent his constituency that 
he was twice re-elected to Congress, serv- 
ing three terms in all. As a further evi- 
dence of appreciation Mr. Hendricks was 
elected Governor in 1822, but before com- 
pleting his term he was again sent to Con- 
gress, this time as Senator. A second term 
as United States Senator was accorded 
him, thus extending his congressional 
service to eighteen years in all. Historic- 
ally we are informed that "during his term 
as Governor the people were struggling 
under the load of business depression fol- 
lowing 1820, and that but little of moment 
was done by the Legislature except advanc- 
ing the cause of education." 


November 15, 1816, a resolution was in- 
troduced in the House that a committee be 
appointed for the purpose of taking into 
consideration the expediency of providing 
for the election of President and Vice- 
President of the United States. The com- 
mittee was composed of Amos Lane, Dear- 
born county; John Dumont, Switzerland; 
Ratliff Boon, Warrick; Thomas Carr, 
Clark, and Edward Hogan, Gibson, to meet 
with a joint committee of the Senate. 

In joint session the Senate and House 
elected as presidential electors: Jesse L. 
Holman, General Joseph Bartholomew, 
and Thomas H. Blake. They voted for 

The vote for United States Senator was : 
James Noble, 26 ; Waller Taylor, 20 ; James 
Scott. 16; Jesse L. Holman, 3; Ezra Fer- 
ris, 2 ; Davis Floyd, 2 ; Walter Wilson, 2 ; 
Elias McNamee, 1. 

In 1820 the Legislature in joint session 
elected as presidential electors: Daniel I. 
Caswell, John H. Thompson, and Nathan- 
iel Ewing. The Vincemies Sun stated 
after these gentlemen had discharged their 
official duty : "It is said the electors voted 
for James Monroe for President and Dan- 
iel D. Tompkins for Vice-President." 


The history of party organization in In- 
diana may be said to date from the first 
Jackson campaign of 1824, incited by the 
United States Bank issue, which had been 
raised by "Old Hickory." This extended 
back even to the Madison administration, 
for the Western Sun, published at Vin- 
cennes, reporting the legislative elections 
of August, 1820, says: "Election reports 
show that majorities had been given over 
the 'Banking, or Federal ticket.' " 

The same publication furnished an in- 
sight into methods of candidate making, 
for a later issue makes this announcement : 
"A register has been opened at the grocery 
store of Mr. William Micure, where the 
friends of the different candidates may 
record their names under their respective 

In the 1824 campaign originally David 
Robb, of Gibson county; Hiram Aldridge, 
of Shelby ; Jonathan McCarty, of Fayette ; 
John Milroy, of Lawrence, and John Carr, 
of Clark, were chosen as Jackson electors, 
but some dissatisfaction arose because cer- 
tain ones would not withdraw, while oth- 
ers were held to be ineligible. In conse- 
quence of the state of feeling thus aroused, 
a call was issued for a convention to be 
held September 16 at the Court House in 



Salem "for the purpose of forming an elec- 
toral ticket in favor of Andrew Jackson 
for President of the United States." 

Thirteen counties were represented at 
the convention by delegates who selected 
Samuel Milroy, of Washington county, as 
chairman, and Jacob Call, of Knox county, 
as secretary. A new electoral ticket was 
named, composed of David Robb, of Gib- 
son county; Samuel Milroy, of Washing- 
ton; Elias McNamee, of Knox county; 
Jonathan McCarty, of Fayette, and John 
Carr, of Clark. 

Dr. J. T. Canby, of Madison; Samuel 
Beach, of Jeffersonville, and Jesse B. Der- 
ham, of Jackson county, were appointed "a 
general corresponding committee with full 
power, and whose duty was to fill any va- 
cancies that might occur on the electoral 
ticket, and to take such measures as may 
be necessary to insure success." 

The Henry Clay electoral ticket was 
composed of William W. Wick, of Marion 
county; Marson G. Clark, of Washington 
county ; James Rariden, of Wayne county ; 
Walter Wilson, of Gibson county, and 
Moses Tabbs, of Knox county. 

The electors for John Quincy Adams 
were: Isaac Blackford, of Knox county; 
Jesse L. Holman, of Dearborn county ; Da- 
vid H. Maxwell, of Monroe county ; James 
Scott, of Clark county, and Christopher 
Harrison, of Washington county. (Jesse 
L. Holman was the father of William S. 
Holman, who served a longer period in 
Congress than any other Indianian, and 
who achieved a national reputation as the 
relentless objector to every extravagance 
in the expenditure of public moneys. Mil- 
lions upon millions of dollars were thus, 
through his vigilance and steadfastness, 
saved the nation during his long and use- 
ful congressional service.) 


The second and final convention called 
to appoint Jackson electors, Dr. J. T. Can- 
by, of Madison, Samuel Beach of Jeffer- 

sonville, and Jesse B. Derham of Jackson 
county, were appointed a general corre- 
spondence committee having full power, 
and whose duty was to fill any vacancies 
on the electoral ticket "and take such meas- 
ures as may be necessary to insure its suc- 

Samuel Judah, Dr. Israel T. Canby, 
Henry S. Handy, of Jefferson; Samuel 
Carr, of Clark, and William Kelsey, of 
Lawrence, were named to prepare an ad- 
dress to the people of Indiana on the ap- 
proaching election, same being published 
October 16, 1824, by the Western Sun and 
General Advertiser, of Vincennes, in part 
as follows : 

"The history of Andrew Jackson pre- 
sents every pledge deeds can give of his 
ability for all his country can require of 

"His political principles undoubted, his 
integrity without a stain, and above sus- 
picion ; his greatness of intellect proved by 
the ever-successful result of all his enter- 
prises, we confide in him and we deem him 
most worthy the Presidency of the na- 
tion. . 

"The history of philosophy, the legisla- 
tion of Solon and genius of her sons have 
immortalized Athens. The time was when 
the spirit of Minerva inspired her coun- 
cils. Neptune bowed his trident before 
her, and the commerce of the world poured 
the wealth of nations at her feet. But 
corruption sealed the destiny of the Athen- 
ians — Pericles had expended the spoils of 
the public treasury in bribing his fellov/ 
citizens — virtue had ceased to exist at 
Athens, etc. 

"As Americans, as citizens of the West, 
as Republicans, and as men only actuated 
by a sincere love of our common country, 
of its love, prosperity and happiness, we 
most earnestly recommend to you, fellow 
citizens, to support the man of the people, 
Andrew Jackson." 

At the presidential election in 1824 the 
people of Indiana, for the first time since 
her admission into the Union, were per- 
mitted to name the electors by popular 
vote. Prior thereto the electors were 
chosen by the Legislature. The electors 
named in 1816 were chosen before Indiana 


8 16-1 

had been admitted into the Union. There 
was some objection to this procedure, but 
in the absence of serious opposition, In- 
diana's three votes were included in the 
count for Monroe. 


At this gathering, held on the 8th of 
January, Israel T. Canby presided. Ben- 
jamin V. Becker was named as vice-presi- 
dent, and Paris C. Dunning and William 
Marshall officiated as secretaries. 

Jackson electors chosen were: Benja- 
min V. Becker, Knox; Jesse B. Derham, 
Jackson; Ross Smiley, Union; Ratliff 
Boon, Warrick; William Lowe, Monroe. 

A committee was appointed to prepare 
an address to the people of Indiana in 
favor of Andrew Jackson. This commit- 
tee was made to consist of Samuel Judah, 
Knox; Paris C. Dunning, Monroe; John 
Cain, Marion; Marcus Willitt, Rush; 
Thomas Fitzgerald, Warrick. 

A general superintendence committee 
was named as follows: R. C. Newland, 
Eli W. Malott, John McMahan, Henry S. 
Handy, of Washington county; General 
John Carr, of Clark; William Hoggatt, 
Orange; William Marshall, Jackson; A. S. 
Burnett, Floyd; John Milroy, Lawrence; 
Nelson Lodge, Jefferson; Elihu Stout, 
Knox; William C. Keen, Switzerland; 
Thomas Posey, Harrison; Jacob B. Lowe, 
Monroe; David V. Culley, Dearborn. 


The supporters of the Adams adminis- 
tration held their convention January 12, 
1828, and named for presidential electors 
General Joseph Orr, of Putnam county; 
John Watts, of Dearborn; General Joseph 
Bartholomew, Gibson; Rev. James Arm- 
strong, Monroe. Mr. Armstrong subse- 
quently declined, and General Amaziah 
Morgan was substituted. John Watts pre- 
sided over the convention that named these 
electors. A protective tariff and internal 

improvements were presented as the main 
issues of the campaign. Opposition to 
Jackson was pronounced. 


For the 1832 campaign the Jacksonites 
met in State convention at the State House 
December 12, 1831. Benjamin V. Becker, 
of Knox county, presided. Arthur Patter- 
son, of Parke, and David Robb served as 
vice-presidents, and Wm. J. Brown of 
Rush and Nathaniel Field of Clark offi- 
ciated as secretaries. Thirty-nine coun- 
ties were represented. 

A committee consisting of Messrs. Mor- 
rison, Feeney, Culley, Reid and Davis re- 
ported a series of resolutions which were 
published in the Co.s.s County Times of De- 
cember 30, 1831. They dwell on the de- 
pressed condition of the country when 
President Jackson entered upon office and 
point with satisfaction to the improvement 
wrought by his administration; foreign 
treaties made by the Jackson administra- 
tion come in for laudation. 

Electors named were: George Boon, 
Sullivan county; James Blake, Marion; 
Arthur Patterson, Parke; Nathan B. Pal- 
mer, Jefferson, and Marks Crume, Fayette. 

Contingent electors: Thomas Givens, 
Posey county ; Alexander S. Burnet; Floyd ; 
Walter Armstrong, Dearborn, and John 
Ketcham, Monroe. 

Resolutions adopted were to this effect: 
"That we approve the measures of the 
present administration, and especially the 
late change in the cabinet, the payment of 
the national debt, the removal of the In- 
dians, and the right system of economy 
and accountability effected and recom- 
mended by our present 'revered' President, 
Andrew Jackson." 

Hon. John Tipton, Hon. Ratliff Boon, 
Hon. Jonathan McCarty, Hon. John Carr 
and Gen. Samuel Milroy were named dele- 
gates to the Baltimore convention. 

2 — History 




Central Committee: A. F. Morrison, D. 
L. McFarland, Abraham W. Harrison, 
George L. Kinnard and Henry Brady, Ma- 
rion county; Nathaniel Bolton, Jefferson; 
Jacob Shank, Shelby; John C. Julien, Hen- 
dricks ; John P. Dunn and William Lanius, 
Dearborn; Enos Lowe, Putnam; Aaron 
Finch, Jefferson; Edward A. Hannegan, 
Fountain; John Spencer, John Irwin and 
Daniel Reid, Wayne ; John C. Huckleberry, 
Clark; John W. Cox, Morgan; William P. 
Riser, Bartholomew; John Wood, Rush; 
John Berry, Madison; Jeremiah Smith, 
Randolph ; R. C. Newland, Washington ; 
John Gardner, Vermillion. 

Governor Ray seems to have experienced 
some difficulty in balancing himself polit- 
ically. Ostensibly a Jacksonian, he con- 
sidered it an affront to be asked to commit 
himself one way or another. 


The opponents of Jackson styled them- 
selves National Republicans. They held 
their State convention at Indianapolis, No- 
vember 7, 1831. Nineteen counties were 
represented by thirty-one delegates. 
Twelve others were given seats. Charles 
Dewey, of Clark county, presided ; Douf an 
Maguire, of Marion county, acted as sec- 
retary. The resolutions adopted start out 
with these declarations : 

"The friends of the American system 
composing this convention warmly partici- 
pate with their fellow citizens of Indiana 
and the adjacent States in the general de- 
sire to see the vital interests of domestic 
industry and internal improvements res- 
cued from their present state of jeopardy, 
and fostered and maintained with un- 
abated zeal. They are especially desirous 
to witness a correct, honorable and suc- 
cessful administration of the general gov- 
ernment. The captivating promises of re- 
trenchment and reform in which the 
friends of General Jackson so copiously 
indulged previous to the last election have 
not been realized. The alleged abuses of 
the former administration have been cop- 
ied and re-copied so often by the present, 
that, if their number and magnitude had 

not destroyed the resemblance, we should 
be led to imagine that the defects of the 
administration of Mr. Adams had been 
selected as the models for that of General 

The resolutions declared for a tariff of 
duties for the protection of American in- 
dustry, for internal improvement, and en- 
dorsed Henry Clay for President. 

Delegates to the Baltimore convention 
selected were: John I. Neely, Isaac Howk, 
and George H. Dunn. 

The Indiana Democrat said this conven- 
tion "numbered several who had lately 
been invited into retirement by the peo- 
ple," mentioning Messrs. Test, Oliver H. 
Smith, John H. Thompson, Isaac Howk, 
Law and W. W. Wick. The paper called 
it "A Forlorn Hope." 

A preliminary meeting was held at 
Brookville, Franklin county, March 14, 
1834, to pave the way for nominating a 
successor to President Jackson. Dr. John 
Bradburn presided and Ben Sed Noble 
acted as secretary. Col. C. W. Hutchens, 
Jonathan Eads and Dr. George Berry were 
the committee on resolutions which re- 
ported an endorsement of Martin Van 
Buren for President and Richard M. John- 
son of Kentucky for Vice-President. No 
further action was taken at this gathering, 
but a convention was called to be held at 
Indianapolis, December 9, 1834, at which 
General Samuel Milroy presided. Robert 
Mclntyre of Fountain county and David V. 
Culley of Dearborn county were named as 
vice-presidents, and William B. White of 
Fountain county and A. F. Morrison of 
Marion officiated as secretaries. 

Three delegates to the national conven- 
tion which was subsequently called to be 
held at Baltimore, May 20, 1835, were 
named from each of the seven districts, as 
follows : 

First — John B. Moyer, Orange county; 
Joseph Lane, Vanderburg; John Pitcher, 



19 16 

Second — Lewis H. Sands, Putnam; 
Ralph Wilson, Vigo ; Hiram Decker, Knox. 

Third — Dr. Jesse Jackson, Scott; Gen- 
eral William Marshall, and Isaac Stewart. 

Fourth — Andrew Davidson, Decatur; 
John P. Dunn, Dearborn; William J. 
Brown, Rush. 

Fifth— Daniel Reid, Wayne; John Spen- 
cer, Allen ; John D. Vaughan, Wayne. 

Sixth — Alexander F. Morrison, John 
Cain and Livingston Dunlap, Marion. 

Seventh — Genei-al Samuel Milroy, Car- 
roll; T. A. Howard, Parke; Thomas B. 
BrowTi, Tippecanoe. -i ( ' (-'-i''" A*2, 

An enthusiastic ratification convention 
was held at Indianapolis, January 8, 1836. 
The convention was called to order by 
George Boon, of Sullivan county. General 
Samuel Milroy, of Carroll county, was 
made temporary chairman, and Thomas B. 
Brown of Tippecanoe and Jesse Jackson 
of Scott, secretaries. The permanent or- 
ganization was oflScered by the following 
named gentlemen : 

President: Nathan B. Palmer, Marion 

Vice-Presidents : William Casey, Posey ; 
George Boon, Sullivan; John Prather, 
Clark; Thomas Howard, Dearborn; Ross 
Smiley, Fayette; Elihu Stout, Knox; Wil- 
liam White, Vermillion. 

Secretaries: Thomas B. Brown, Tippe- 
canoe; Jesse Jackson, Scott; William C. 
Foster, Monroe ; James W. Borden, Wayne. 
Upon taking the chair Mr. Palmer said: 
"We have convened on the present occa- 
sion as the representatives of the people, 
clothed with the important trust of select- 
ing an electoral ticket from our Demo- 
cratic brethren, pledged to vote for the 
Hon. Martin Van Buren, of New York, for 
President of the United States, and for 
Col. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, for 

"These distinguished gentlemen stand 
pledged as the disciples of Jefferson and 
Jackson, to carry out and to preserve in 
their purity those great republican prin- 
ciples, which, from the earliest period of 

our government, it has been the great ob- 
ject of the Democratic party to sustain." 

In closing, Mr. Palmer said : 

"Nor should we be regardless of the im- 
portance of union and harmony in our 
ranks. ... A spirit that asks not 
the aid nor interference of Congress to 
make for the people a president. Yea, 
more, a spirit of indignation of the de- 
moralizing tendency of that open and 
avowed object of so multiplying candidates 
for the Presidency, that the people may 
be induced, through local interests and 
local influences, to so cast their votes 
as to cheat themselves out of the choice of 
the chief magistrate of this Union. But I 
pursue this subject no farther. The out- 
rage contemplated in this attempt is too 
palpable to escape the notice of any intelli- 
gent citizens." 

There were reasons for sounding this 
note of warning. Insidious eff'orts were 
made in various parts of the Union to 
bring out candidates for the presidency, 
with a view to complicating affairs and 
causing strife and contention among those 
who had steadfastly upheld the adminis- 
tration of President Jackson. Judge Mc- 
Lean was formally brought out for the 
presidency by a caucus of the Ohio Legis- 
lature. Thomas H. Benton was put in 
nomination at a meeting in Alabama. John 
Forsyth, the distinguished editor of the 
Mobile Regi-'iter, was put in nomination by 
the Georgia Legislature. 

The WesteDi Sun published a letter Jan- 
uary 24, 1835, from Thomas H. Benton, in 
which he declined to stand as a candidate 
for the vice-presidency on the nomination 
given him by the Mississippi State conven- 
tion. He lauds Van Buren and declares 
harmony is necessary in order to preserve 
the party, and states his belief that 
schemes are afoot to disorganize the party 
by bringing out numerous candidates. The 
letter was i.ssued in answer to one sent him 
by a committee composed of Robert T. 
Lytle, Ohio ; Henry Hubbard, New Hamp- 
shire; Ratliff Boon, Indiana, and H. A. 
Muhlenberg, Pennsylvania, these gentle- 



men urging reconsideration of his an- 
nounced declaration. 

The committee on resolutions consisted 
of James Whitcomb, Monroe ; A. C. Grif- 
fith, Jackson; V. P. Antwerp, Vigo; J. R. 
Craig, Posey; George Finch, Vander- 
burg; A. C. Reid, Marion; A. C. Pepper, 
Dearborn, and James Ritchey, Johnson. 

Electors-at-large : John Myers, of Knox, 
and William Rockhill, of Allen county. 

Contingent electors-at-large : Robert 
Mclntyre, of Fountain county, and Jona- 
than Lyon, of Washington county. 


1. Thomas C. Stewart, Pike county. 

2. George W. Moore, Owen. 

3. Jesse Jackson, Scott. 

4. Marinus Willet, Rush. 

5. Gen. Elisha Long, Wayne. 

6. Jonathan Williams, Morgan. 

7. Capt. William White, Vermilion. 


1. Col. John Pinnick, Orange county. 

2. John Thornburgh, Putnam. 

3. Jonathan Lyon, Washington. 

4. William Purcell, Dearborn. 

5. James Leviston, Union. 

6. Gen. John Milroy, Hancock. 

7. James Strange, Parke. 

State Central Committee named at this 
convention: Livingston Dunlap, Nathan 
B. Palmer, James Morrison, Arthur St. 
Clair, John Cain, A. F. Morrison, S. W. 
Norris, James B. Ray, Nathaniel West, 
Sr., Nathaniel Bolton, John Jamison, John 
Livingston, Archibald C. Reid, Demas L. 
McFarland and Henry Brady, all from 
near Marion county. 


A meeting favorable to the elevation of 
General William Henry Harrison v^^as held 
at the Franklin county court house in 
Brookville, February 5, 1835. Enoch Mc- 
Carty presided. Resolutions were adopted 
lauding the candidacy of General Harri- 
son for the presidency. A committee was 
appointed to prepare an address to the 

citizens of the United States, as follows: 
David Mount, Dr. Samuel St. John, Major 
J. L. Andrew, John A. Matson, Robert 
John, Lemuel Snow, Bartholomew Fitz- 
patrick, James Samuels and Capt. John 

A public meeting was held in Franklin 
county, February 6, 1835. Fielding Jeter 
was chairman and Col. B. S. Noble secre- 
tary. Jeter left before the convention 
was over and Noble took the chair. 

John A. Matson presented the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved, That the evils of excited 
party spirit have become so great in the 
United States that the people are imperi- 
ously called upon to take some measures 
to allay the excitement. . . ." 

It ended by declaring confidence in Gen- 
eral William Henry Harrison of Ohio. 

C. W. Hutchens offered a motion to ad- 
journ for four weeks, which was lost. He 
then offered as a substitute: 

"Whereas, Several hundred of the citi- 
zens of Franklin county united in inviting 
together their fellow citizens for a specific 
object, viz., to adopt measures, that in the 
opinion of this assemblage shall be best 
adapted to the work of allaying party 
strife or excitement — a consummation de- 
voutly to be wished ; we have after mature 
reflection come to the conclusion that the 
object can be best attained by leaving the 
business of candidate-making to others 
who are better acquainted with the claims 
of prominent men than is possible in the 
nature of things than we can be. There- 

"Resolved, That we will, each of us, re- 
turn to our respective places of abode, and 
with the utmost composure, await the 
presentation of the candidates for the of- 
fice of President and Vice-I'resident of the 
United States, and also impartially exam- 
ine, from the best opportunities offered, 
the qualifications, and make our selections 

"Resolved, That we deprecate all at- 
tempts to dictate to us, from whatever 
source, and that we prefer open dealing to 
blind innuendo. 

"Resolved, That we think this course en- 
tirely characteristic of freemen, and con- 


tradistinguished by that of calling together 
a select few for the advancement of party 
views to operate more abroad than at 

These resolutions were adopted. C. W. 
Hutchen then moved to amend the resolu- 
tion of John A. Matson by striking out the 
name of Harrison and inserting the name 
of the person who may be nominated by 
the Democratic National Convention to be 
held on the 20th of May, 1835. This mo- 
tion failed, as did also that by Hutchens, 
to substitute the name of Martin Van 
Buren for that of Hai-rison. 

Though the Democrats of Indiana did 
not succeed in securing the election of Van 
Buren electors, they felt highly elated over 
the victory won in the country-at-large. 
While averse to General Harrison being 
made Pi'esident of the United States, they 
felt that the pioneers owed him a large 
debt of gratitude for the splendid military 
sei'vice he rendered in fighting the Indians 
and making it possible for white men to 
gain a habitation and enjoy the benefits 


A jollification over the election of Van 
Buren and Johnson was held December 26, 
1836, at Ross Smiley's store at Longwood, 
Fayette county. The newspaper account 

"When the meeting was proposed it was 
only intended to meet and drink a few bot- 
tles of wine in sociability, expressive of 
the good feeling experienced on the occa- 
sion. But finding the meeting would be 
numerously attended, a beautiful young 
hickoiy, five inches in diameter, was plant- 
ed with the bark and limbs thereon, and 
bearing a flagstaff", with a new hickory 
broom on the top and a flag of the Union 
suspended at a distance of seventy-five feet 
from the ground. On the flag was im- 
pressed the name of Martin Van Buren in 
large letters, with the eagle, stars and 
stripes, and decorated with ribbons — all in 
handsome style." 

CONGRESS FROM 1816 TO 1833. 

During the first six years of Statehood 
Indiana had but one Representative in 
Congress — William Hendricks. Under a 
new apportionment, as the result of large- 
ly increased population, the State became 
entitled to three Representatives. This 
ratio continued until 1833, when the 
State's representation was more than dou- 
bled. William Prince, ex-Governor Jona- 
than Jennings and John Test were elected 
to the Eighteenth Congress. Mr. Prince 
was killed by the explosion of a steamboat 
on the way to Washington to begin his 
term of ofl^ce. Jacob Call was elected to 
fill the vacancy. 

To tho Nineteenth Congress — 182.5 to 
1827 — Ratlifl: Boon, Jonathan Jennings 
and John Test were elected. 

There was quite a "shake-up" in the 
election of members to the Twentieth Con- 
gress, Boon having been defeated and 
Thomas Blake chosen in his stead. Jen- 
nings fared better, succeeding himself, but 
Test was replaced by Oliver H. Smith. 

At the following election the delegation 
to the Twenty-first Congress was again 
made to consist of Boon, Jennings, and 
Test. But at the election two years later 
Ratliff' Boon was the only one of the trio 
to retain his seat, so that Indiana's delega- 
tion to the Twenty-second Congress was 
made to consist of Ratliff Boon, John Carr, 
and Jonathan McCarty. With the ending 
of that decade terminated Indiana's trio 

In order to give the present generation 
something of an idea of the manner of men 
sent to Congress from Indiana in the ear- 
lier days of the State's existence, brief 
biographical sketches are presented : 

tative and a Senator; born in Westmore- 
land county, Pennsylvania, November 12, 
1782 ; attended the common schools ; moved 
to Madison, Ind., in 1814; Secretary of the 



first State Constitutional Convention; 
elected as a Democrat to the Fourteenth, 
Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Con- 
gresses and served from March 4, 1815, 
until his resignation in 1822 ; Governor of 
Indiana 1822-1825; elected United States 
Senator from Indiana; re-elected in 1831, 
and served from March 4, 1825, to March 
3, 1837; died in Madison, Ind., May 16, 

RATLIFF BOON, born in Franklin 
county, North Carolina, January 18, 1781 ; 
moved with his father to Warren county, 
Kentucky ; emigrated to Danville, Ky., and 
learned the gunsmith's trade ; attended the 
public schools ; moved to Indiana in 1809 ; 
on the organization of Warren county was 
appointed its first treasurer; member of 
the State House of Representatives in 
1816-1817; elected to the State Senate in 
1818; elected Lieutenant-Governor of In- 
diana in 1819; upon the resignation of 
Jonathan Jennings as Governor, filled out 
the unexpired term until December 5, 
1822; re-elected Lieutenant-Governor and 
resigned to become candidate for Con- 
gress; elected to the Nineteenth Congress 
(March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1827) as a 
Jackson Democrat; elected to the Twenty- 
first, Twenty-second, Twenty-third, Twen- 
ty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Congresses 
(March 4, 1829, to March 3, 1839) ; unsuc- 
cessful candidate for the United States 
Senate in 1836 ; moved to Pike county, Mis- 
souri; died in Louisiana, Mo., November 
20, 1844. 

from Indiana Territory, and a Representa- 
tive from Indiana; born in Hunterdon 
county, New Jersey, in 1784; went with 
parents to Fayette county, Pennsylvania, 
where he pursued an academic course; 
went to Indiana Territory and became 
Clerk of the Territorial Legislature ; elect- 
ed the first delegate from Indiana Terri- 
tory to the Eleventh Congress; re-elected 
to the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth 

Congresses, and served from November 
27, 1809, to March 3, 1817; elected Gov- 
ernor of Indiana in December, 1816, and 
served until 1822; appointed Indian Com- 
missioner in 1818; elected to the Seven- 
teenth Congress to fill the vacancy caused 
by the resignation of William Hendricks; 
re-elected to the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, 
Twentieth and Twenty-first Congresses, 
and served from December 2, 1822, to 
March 3, 1831 ; died near Charlestown, 
Ind., July 26, 1834. 

JOHN TEST, a native of Salem, N. J. ; 
attended the common schools ; studied law, 
was admitted to the bar, and began prac- 
tice in Brookville, Ind.; held several. local 
offices; elected as a Clay Democrat to the 
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Congresses 
(March 4, 1823, to March 3, 1827) ; un- 
successful candidate for re-election to the 
Twentieth Congress ; re-elected as a Whig 
to the Twenty-first Congress (March 4, 
1829, to March 3, 1831) ; presiding judge 
of Indiana circuit court; moved to Mobile, 
Ala. ; died near Cambridge City, Ind., Oc- 
tober 9, 1849. 

born in Calvert county, Maryland, June 
14, 1792; attended the public schools and 
studied law in Washington, D. C. ; member 
of the militia of the District of Columbia 
which took part in the battle of Bladens- 
berg, in 1814; moved to Kentucky and 
then to Indiana ; began the practice of law 
in Terre Haute; prosecuting attorney and 
judge of the circuit court; gave up the 
practice of law and engaged in business ; 
for several years a member of the State 
Legislature of Indiana; elected as an 
Adams Republican to the Twentieth Con- 
gress (March 4, 1827, to March 3, 1829) ; 
appointed Commissioner of the General 
Land Office by President Tyler, May 19, 
1842, and served until April, 1845; chosen 
President of the Erie & Wabash Canal 
Company; visited England as Financial 


Agent of the State of Indiana; on his re- 
turn died in Cincinnati, Ohio, November 
28, 1849. 

OLIVER H. SMITH, a Representative 
and a Senator from Indiana; born on 
Smith's Island, near Trenton, N. J., Octo- 
ber 23, 1794 ; moved to Indiana in 1817 ; 
attended the public schools; studied law, 
was admitted to the bar, and began prac- 
tice in Connersville, Ind. ; member of the 
State House of Representatives in 1822- 
1824; Prosecuting Attorney for the Third 
Judicial District 1824 and 1825 ; elected as 
a Jackson Democrat to the Twentieth Con- 
gress (March 4, 1827, to March 3, 1829) ; 
unsuccessful candidate for re-election ; 
elected as a Whig to the United States 
Senate and served from March 4, 1837, to 
March 3, 1843 ; declined the Whig nomina- 
tion for Governor in 1845 ; engaged in the 
railroad business in Indianapolis; died in 
Indianapolis, March 19, 1849. 

JOHN CARR, elected as a Democrat to 
the Twenty-second, Twenty-third and 
Twenty-fourth Congresses (March 4, 
1831, to March 3, 1837) ; elected to the 
Twenty-sixth Congress (March 4, 1839, to 
March 3, 1841) ; died in Charlestown, Ind., 
January 20, 1845. 

James Noble, Waller Taylor, William 
Hendricks, Robert Hanna, John Tipton, 
Oliver H. Smith and Albert S. White were 
chosen prior to 1840 to represent Indiana 
in the United States Senate. Two of 
them — William Hendricks and Oliver H. 
Smith — had previously served in the 
Lower House and are biographically men- 
tioned in the foregoing chapter. They 
will, therefore, not be included in the 
sketches following: 

JAMES NOBLE, born near Berryville, 
Clarke county, Virginia, December 16, 
1785 ; moved with his parents to Campbell 
county, Kentucky, in 1795 ; studied law and 

was admitted to the bar; moved to Brook- 
ville, Franklin county, Indiana, in 1811; 
member of the Territorial Legislature; 
elected to the United States Senate in 
1816; re-elected in 1821 and 1827, and 
served from November 8, 1816, until his 
death, in Washington, D. C, Feb. 26, 1831. 

WALLER TAYLOR, born in Lunenburg 
county, Virginia, before 1786 ; attended the 
common schools ; studied law, was admit- 
ted to the bar, and practiced; member of 
the State Legislature; moved to Indiana 
in 1805, and located in Vincennes ; Territo- 
rial Judge in 1806; served as aide-de-camp 
to Gen. William H. Harrison in the war 
of 1812; appointed Territorial Judge; 
elected as a Democrat to the United States 
Senate; re-elected and served from No- 
vember 8, 1816, to March 3, 1825; died in 
Lunenburg, Va., August 26, 1826. 

ROBERT HANNA, born in Laurens 
district, South Carolina, April 6, 1786; set- 
tled in Brookville, Ind., in 1802 ; sheriff of 
the common pleas court 1811-1820; mem- 
ber of the Indiana Constitutional Conven- 
tion of 1816; brigadier-general of State 
militia; register of the land office; moved 
to Indianapolis in 1825; appointed United 
States Senator as a Whig to fill vacancy 
caused by the death of James Noble, and 
served from December 5, 1831, to January 
3, 1832; member of the State Senate; 
served in the State House of Representa- 
tives ; killed by a railroad train when walk- 
ing upon the track in Indianapolis, No- 
vember 16, 1858. 

JOHN TIPTON, born in Sevier county, 
Tennessee, August 14, 1786; received a 
limited schooling; moved to Harrison coun- 
ty, Indiana, in 1807 ; served with the "Yel- 
low Jackets" in the Tippecanoe campaign, 
and attained the rank of brigadier-general 
of militia ; sheriff of Harrison county, In- 
diana, 1815-1819 ; member of the commit- 
tee to locate the State capitol in 1821 ; 
served in the State of Representa- 
tives 1819-1823; one of the commissioners 



to select a site for a new capital for In- 
diana in 1820 ; commissioner to determine 
boundary line between Indiana and Illi- 
nois ; appointed U. S. Indian agent for the 
Pottawatamie and Miami tribes in March, 
1823 ; laid out the city of Logansport, Ind., 
April 10, 1828; elected to the United 
States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by 
the death of James Noble; re-elected in 
1833, and served from January 3, 1832, 
until March 3, 1839; died in Logansport, 
April 5, 1839. 

ALBERT S. WHITE, born in Blooming 
Grove, Orange county. New York, October 
24, 1803 ; was graduated from Union Col- 
lege in 1822 ; studied law, was admitted to 
the bar in 1825; moved to Lafayette, Ind., 
in 1829 ; Clerk of the State House of Rep- 
resentatives for five years; elected as a 
Whig to the Twenty-fifth Congress 
(March 4, 1837, to March 3, 1839) ; presi- 
dent of several railroads; elected to the 
United States Senate, and served from 
March 4, 1839, to March 3, 1845 ; declined 
a re-election; elected as a Republican to 
the Thirty-seventh Congress (March 4, 
1861, to March 3, 1863) ; Judge of the 
United States court for the district of In- 
diana in 1864, and served until his death 
in Stockwell, Ind., September 24, 1864. 

When the delegate convention met at 
Corydon on the 10th day of June, 1816, 
under the authority of the enabling act of 
Congress, to frame a constitution for the 
new State, William Hendricks was chosen 
secretary of that small but able and his- 
toric body. He was an elder brother of 
Major John Hendricks, father of Thomas 
A. Hendricks. Those who knew him in 
the days of his activity described him as 
having been large and commanding in per- 
son and as bearing in his physiognomy 
the marks of strong intellectuality. In 
August of the same year he was elected 
a member of Congress under the approved 

EMOCRACY — 1816-1916 

constitution, thus becoming the first Rep- 
resentative of the State of Indiana in the 
National Legislature. Twice re-elected to 
this position, he acquitted himself so cred- 
itably that he was, in 1822, elected Gov- 
ernor of the new commonwealth without 
opposition, receiving all the votes cast for 
that high office— 18,340. 

The vote for Lieutenant-Governor was : 

Ratliff Boon 7,809 

William Polke 4,044 

Erasmus Powell 3,603 

David H. Maxwell 2,366 

It is a notable circumstance that Jona- 
than Jennings preceded Hendricks in Con- 
gress as territorial delegate and after 
serving two terms as Governor, succeeded 
him as member of Congress. This ex- 
change of places is in itself evidence of the 
high esteem in which these two men were 
held by the people of Indiana. 

Ratliflt' Boon had been chosen Lieuten- 
ant-Governor in 1819. When Governor 
Jennings was elected to Congress in 1822 
he resigned the office of Governor. Boon 
constitutionally became his successor and 
served as acting Governor from September 
12 to December 5, 1822. At the August 
election of that year Boon was again 
chosen Lieutenant-Governor on the ticket 
headed by Mr. Hendricks. He served as 
such until the close of the legislative ses- 
sion of 1824, when he filed his resignation 
with the Secretary of State. This docu- 
ment was dated August 30, 1824. Under 
the same date he addressed a letter to the 
State Senate in which he announced his 
act of resigning the office which he had 
held under two administrations — those of 
Governors Jennings and Hendricks. 

Before the close of his term as Gov- 
ernor, Mr. Hendricks was elected United 
States Senator to succeed Waller Taylor. 
He filed his resignation as Governor Feb- 
ruary 12, 1825. There being then no 
Lieutenant-Governor, by reason of the res- 
ignation of Ratliff Boon, January 30, 1824, 
James B. Ray, as President of the Sen- 


ate, became acting Governor, serving as two leaders wei'e in hearty accord on that 
such until December 11, 1825. Mr. Ray and other questions and issues. In mat- 
was twice elected Governor, his second ters pertaining to pacification or concilia- 
tenn expiring in 1831. tion the name "Hendricks" seems to have 
At his first election Mr. Ray w^as cred- possessed a high degree of magnetic 
ited with 13,040 votes, while his competi- power. 

tor, the distinguished jurist, Isaac Black- And yet, toward the close of Mr. Hen- 
ford, then an anti-slaveiy Whig but later dricks's second term as U. S. Senator cir- 
on a Democrat, received 10,418 votes, cumstances so shaped themselves as to 
Scattering. 12. For Lieutenant-Governor frustrate his aspiration to a third term in 
the vote stood: that coveted station. It may be assumed 

John H. Thompson 10,781 that, having served three successive terms 

Samuel Milroy 7,496 in the House, he cherished the hope that 

Dennis Penninp;ton 1,496 he might be delegated to represent his 

Elisha Harrison 1,434 g^j^^g f^^, ^ jjj^g number in the Senate. It 

General W. Johnson 851 . t-> u ioo/> J.^ i. xi i.- 

„ .^ • o^ was in December, 1836, that the continu- 

Scatterins: 84 

,, ^^ , ; , , . , ance of his senatorial service came to a 
Mr. Hendricks served two terms in the ^^^j ^^^j^j^^^ The candidates pitted 
Senate of the United States He must have ^^^.^^^ ^.^ ^^,^^^ Governor Noah Noble, 
possessed, in an eminent degree, the con- ^^^^^^ Lieutenant-Governor Ratliff Boon 
dilatory quahties and pacifying charac- ^^^^ Congressman Oliver H. Smith. On 
teristics of his nephew, Thomas A. Hen- ^^^ ^^.^^ ^^^1,^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ Hendricks were 
dricks, whose undisputed leadership of his j^ ^^^ j^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^.^^^^.^^ 
party for a full quarter of a century is changed. On the ninth ballot Smith car- 
without parallel in the history of the State, ^ied away the honors-to the amazement 
Unlike his predecessor, Governor Jen- ^^ ^^e "old timers" who at the beginning 
nings, Mr. Hendricks did not seem to have i^^ked upon his candidacy as a daring and 
become involved in the bitter controversies .o^ewhat presumptuous political venture, 
and contests provoked prior to the State's William Hendricks was bom at Ligo- 
admission into the Union. The pro-slav- ^^j^^, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, 
ery element that came into Indiana Terri- j^ j^g^ jje was educated at Canonsburg, 
tory had ingratiated itself in the good ^^^^^^ f^^ a classmate Dr. Wylie, after- 
graces of General and Governor William ^^^d a distinguished President of the 
Henry Harrison, who himself was a cham- g^^^g University at Bloomington. Both be- 
pion of that cause. Jonathan Jennings ^^^^ eminent, one as a statesman, the 
was the uncompromising foe of slavery ^^^er as an educator. Their diverse path- 
and as such was repeatedly elected as dele- ^^^y^ ^id not diminish their early friend- 
gate to Congress before the Territory had ^y^-^^ ^^.^ich terminated only with their 
been clothed in the habiliment of State- i; 

hood. As a native of the State of Wil- j^' ^j, admirable book, entitled "Bio- 
ham Penn, Mr. Hendricks may without graphical and Historical Sketches of Early 
much hazard be assumed to have been in i,,diana," William Wesley Woollen, who 
sympathy with Mr. Jennings on the slav- pj-j^j. ^^ locating in Indianapolis was for 
eiy question. Public feeling ran high on years a resident of Madison, the town at 
that issue in the Territory, and in view of which William Hendricks established him- 
the fact that in each succeeding contest self and resided from 1814 to the end of 
Mr. Jennings came out of the fray as vie- his useful life, in the year 1850, thus 
tor, the inference is warranted that these speaks of the subject of this sketch: 




"Men who found empires should not be 
forgotten. They plant the tree of civil 
liberty, and water its roots, while those 
who come after them but trim its branches 
to preserve its symmetry. If they plant 
carelessly and in poor soil the tree will 
have but a sickly growth. That the men 
Avho planted Indiana in the wilderness 
planted wisely and well is evidenced by its 
wonderful growth. It was then inhabited 
only by a few thousand hardy pioneers 
who had settled on its southern and east- 
ern borders; now it contains two millions 
of prosperous people, its whole area being 
covered with happy homes. 

"William Hendi'icks had as much to do 
with laying the foundations of this great 
State and commencing its superstructure 
as any other man, excepting Jonathan Jen- 
nings only, and yet how few there are who 
know he ever lived. How transitory is 
the fame of human greatness. 

"Worldly honors are not easily won, al- 
though the bard tells us that some men 
have greatness thrust upon them. In the 
contest for fame there is sharp competi- 
tion, and those only win who have endur- 
ance and mettle. A number of educated 
and talented young men had come to In- 
diana in quest of fortune, and had William 
Hendricks been a dolt or a laggard he 
would have been distanced in the race. 
But he was neither. He was talented and 
energetic, and he won. He also knew how 
to utilize the means at his command and 
to make the most of the situation. When 
he came to Indiana he brought with him 
a printing press, and soon afterward com- 
menced the publication of a weekly paper. 
It was called the Eagle, and, I believe, was 
the second newspaper published in the 
State, the Vincennes Sun being the first. 
Through his paper he became known and 
paved the way for his political fortune. 
He made the first revision of the laws of 
the State and had it printed on his own 
press. The Legislature offered to pay him 
for this work, but he declined all pecuniary 
compensation. It then passed a resolu- 
tion of thanks, the only return for his la- 
bor he would take. 

"Governor Hendricks was a friend to 
education. Hanover College and the State 
University at Bloomington both received 
his fostering care. He took an active in- 
terest in public enterprises, and frequent- 
ly aided them with his purse. He was 

very politic in his actions, never antagon- 
izing a man when he could honorably avoid 
it. He had a large estate, and after leav- 
ing the Senate he spent his time in manag- 
ing it and practicing law. He held on to 
his real estate with great tenacity, leasing 
it for a term of years when practicable, 
instead of selling it. Many houses were 
erected at Madison on property leased of 
him, and, like most houses built under such 
circumstances, they were poorly and 
cheaply constructed. His disposition to 
lease rather than sell his property caused 
much dissatisfaction among the people, 
and very greatly lessened his influence. 

"On the 16th of May, 1850, Governor 
Hendricks rode out to his farm, just north 
of Madison, to oversee the building of a 
family vault. While assisting in the prepa- 
ration of a receptacle for his body 
'after life's fitful fever' was over, he was 
taken ill and soon afterward died. The 
author is not certain whether he died at 
the farm house or was taken back to his 
home in the city, but is inclined to the 
opinion that he breathed his last near the 
spot where he is buried and where his re- 
mains have crumbled to dust. 

"Governor Hendricks was of a family 
that occupies a front place in the history 
of Indiana. There is probably no other 
one in the State that has exerted so wide 
an influence upon its politics and legisla- 
tion as his. His eldest son, John Abram, 
was a captain in the Mexican war, and a 
lieutenant-colonel in the War of the Re- 
bellion. He was killed in the battle of 
Pea Ridge while in command of his regi- 
ment. Another son, Thomas, was killed 
in the Teche country during General 
Banks' campaign up Red River. A broth- 
er and a nephew sat in the State Senate, 
and another nephew, Hon. Thomas A. 
Hendricks, has received the highest hon- 
ors his State could confer upon him. 

"Governor Hendricks was about six feet 
high and had a well-proportioned body. 
He had auburn hair, blue eyes and a florid 
complexion. His manners were easy and 
dignified, and his address that of a well- 
bred gentleman. He was not a great law- 
yer, nor an eloquent advocate, but he pre- 
pared his cases with care and was reason- 
ably successful at the bar. In early life 
he was a Presbyterian, but in his later 
years he joined the Methodist church and 
died in her communion." 


The I)idiam Gazetteer of 1850 thus 
spoke of him : "Governor Hendricks was 
for many years by far the most popular 
man in the State. He had been its sole 
representative in Congress for six years, 
elected on each occasion by large majori- 
ties, and no member of that body, prob- 
ably, was more attentive to the interests 
of the State he represented, or more in- 
dustrious in arranging all the private or 
local business entrusted to him. He left 
no letter unanswered, no public office or 
document did he fail to visit or examine 
on request; with personal manners very 
engaging, he long retained his popularity." 

In northern Indiana there is a thriving 
town, located in Noble county, that was 
laid out by Isaac Cavin and named Ligo- 
nier. It was in this town that the author 
of this book established the National Bari' 
ner in May, 1866. This paper is still in 
existence, but bears the name Ligonier 
Banner. Like Mr. Hendricks, Isaac 
Cavin came to Indiana from the vicinity 
of Ligonier, Westmoreland county, Penn- 
sylvania. He was a most estimable man 
and a highly successful farmer on the cele- 
brated "Hawpatch," the garden spot of In- 


When Governor Jonathan Jennings ac- 
cepted an election to Congress his unex- 
pired term was filled by Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor Ratliff Boon. And upon being 
elected a second time as Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor, in 1822, he served two-thirds of his 
term and then resigned. His reason for re- 
signing was that he wanted to go to Con- 
gress. He made a successful race for that 
position in the First district in 1824, but 
was defeated two years later by Colonel 
Thomas H. Blake. But in four subsequent 
races he was again successful. As a Con- 
gressman he was quite active and influen- 
tial. During the greater part of his con- 
gressional service he was chairman of the 
then highly important committee on pub- 

lic lands. In 1836 he a.spired to a seat in 
the U. S. Senate, antagonizing Senator 
Hendricks, who desired to be re-elected to 
a third term. The election of a Whig, 
Oliver H. Smith, was the final outcome of 
the contest. Mr. Boon was a radical Jack- 
sonian Democrat, though in the earlier 
part of his political career he styled him- 
self a Jeffersonian and later on a Ben- 
tonian. His congressional career ended in 
March, 1839, and a few months afterward 
he moved from Indiana to Pike county, 
Missouri. In that State, then absolutely 
under the sway of Thomas H. Benton, 
Boon soon again actively engaged in poli- 
tics. He became leader of the anti-Benton 
Democrats, who were bent on sending him 
to Congress. His health had, however, be- 
come undermined. He was intensely anx- 
ious that James K. Polk be elected to the 
presidency in 1844. When assurance came 
the latter part of November that Henry 
Clay was beaten and Polk triumphantly 
elected, Ratliff Boon expressed himself 
quite willing to die. His spirit fled from 
its tenement November 20, 1844. 

The spirit of conciliation, concession 
and compromise must have been very 
much in evidence at the beginning of In- 
diana's State government. This was espe- 
cially made manifest in the first election 
of U. S. Senators, when James Noble and 
Waller Taylor were chosen. The latter 
was a pronounced pro-slavery man and a 
bitter personal and political enemy of Gov- 
ernor Jennings. When Indiana was still 
a territory Judge Taylor ran against Jen- 
nings for delegate to Congress. The con- 
test was made an offensively bitter one, 
not by Jennings, but by Taylor. The lat- 
ter boasted of having publicly insulted his 
competitor and of having done his utmost 
to provoke the fighting of a duel. "Liar, 
sneak, coward," were some of the choice 
epithets hurled at Jennings, who, however, 
maintained his equanimity and compla- 
cently ignored the vituperation of his an- 
tagonist. It would seem strange, how- 


19 1 

ever, that under such circumstances Wal- 
ler Taylor could twice have been chosen to 
the exalted office of United States Senator. 


As a result of the resignation of Lieu- 
tenant-Governor Ratliff Boon, January 30, 
1824, James Brown Ray, a Senator from 
Franklin county, was chosen president pro 
tempore of the Indiana State Senate. He 
presided over that body to the close of the 
session, and was again chosen to that posi- 
tion at the beginning of the next session 
in January, 1825. Upon Governor Hen- 
dricks' election to the U. S. Senate Mr. 
Ray became acting Governor. He was 
then an exceedingly popular young man. 
The following year he became a candidate 
for Governor and was, as already stated, 
triumphantly elected by a majority of 
2,622 votes over the distinguished jurist, 
Isaac Blackford. Ray's administration 
must have given measurable satisfaction, 
for at the next election, in 1828 — presi- 
dential year, when Andrew Jackson was 
triumphantly elected to the Presidency of 
the United States — Governor Ray was re- 
elected. He had two competitors — Dr. 
Israel T. Canby and Harbin H. Moore. 
Governor Ray received 15,141 votes; Dr. 
Canby, 12,315, and Mr. Moore, 10,904. He 
held the office until 1831, when he was suc- 
ceeded by Noah Noble. 

The race for the Lieutenant-Governor- 
ship was a remarkably close one, as ap- 
pears from these figures : 

Milton Stapp 17,895 

Abel C. Pepper 17,262 

The total vote for Governor exceeded 
this by 3,000, the three candidates being 
credited with 38,360. 

Governor Ray became involved in a 
somewhat acrimonious controversy over 
the appointment of supreme judges. It 
appears that he had aspirations to go to 
the U. S. Senate and that two of the judges 
assumed to be justly entitled to i-eappoint- 

ment were denied such recognition by the 
Governor on account of their refusal to 
aid him in his senatorial aspirations. 

This greatly impaired his popularity. 
Prior thereto he had rendered himself un- 
popular by accepting an appointment as 
commissioner to negotiate a treaty with 
the Miami and Pottawatamie Indians. The 
constitution expressly forbade a State offi- 
cer holding a federal appointment of trust 
and profit. To get around this he request- 
ed that no formal commission be issued to 
him and that he be simply authorized by 
letter to serve on the aforesaid commission 
in conjunction with Generals Lewis Cass 
and John Tipton. This extraordinary 
procedure was sharply criticised by the 
Legislature. Formal action was taken, 
but the matter was permitted to drag 
along for a time. A final decision was 
evaded and Governor Ray was permitted 
to resume the functions of that office. It 
was a "close shave," this escape from a 
formal declaration that the office of Gov- 
ernor had been vacated by the acceptance 
of an appointment to effect a settlement 
with the Indians. 

In view of the fact that Governor Ray 
instigated the gigantic internal improve- 
ment movement that subsequently proved 
so disastrous to the State, the subjoined 
characterization of the man by William 
Wesley Woollen will be adjudged as being 
of more than passing interest: 

"In Governor Ray's messages to the 
Legislature he argued forcibly and elo- 
quently the great advantage that must 
accrue to Indiana by the construction and 
operation of railroads, and predicted much 
which, although at the time seemed 
chimerical, has really come to pass. Many 
considered him insane and his utterances 
those of a madman, but time has demon- 
strated that in the main he was correct. 
He saw more plainly than any other man 
of his day the future of the State in which 
he lived. After he left office he contin- 
ued to dilate upon his favorite subject, and 
to predict a great future for Indianapolis. 




A writer, who seems to think the Governor 
was somewhat off his mental balance, thus 
speaks of him in a late article in an In- 
dianapolis paper: 

During a long period of mental disturbance in 
his old age, Governor Ray was fond of discussing 
his "grand scheme" of railroad concentration at 
Indianapolis. Here was to be the head of a score 
of radiating lines. At intervals of five miles were 
to be villages, of ten miles towns, and of twenty 
miles respectable cities. This crazy whim, as 
everybody regarded it, has been made a fact as 
solid as the everlasting hills. The only point of 
failure is the feature that possessed special in- 
terest to the Governor. The Union Depot and 
point of concentration of the radiating lines are 
not on his property, opposite the court house, 
where, by all the requirements of symmetry and 
consistency, they should have been. Oddly enough, 
one expedient in construction, which certainly 
looked silly, has been actually put in use success- 
fully in some one or another of our far Western 
lines. Where deep gorges were to be crossed, he 
thought that trestle-work might be replaced by 
cutting ofi^ the tops of growing trees level with 
the track and laying sills on these for the rails. 
It is not many months since the papers published 
a description of exactly that sort of expedients in 
crossing a deep and heavily timbered hollow on a 
Western railway — the Denver & Rio Grande prob- 
ably. So thoroughly has the great "hub" scheme 
and its connections and incidents been identified 
with Governor Ray and his hallucinations, that 
there are few who know anything of the matter 
at all who will not be surprised to learn that the 
origination of it is at least as likely to be the 
work of Governor Noble's deliberate reasoning as 
of Governor Ray's fantasies. In his annual mes- 
sage of 1833-4 he discusses the importance of the 
internal improvement system, then projected and 
widely debated, but not adopted by the State, and 
only partially pursued by the help of canal land 
grants by Congress, and he argues for the con- 
centration of artificial facilities for transporta- 
tion here. In other words, without saying it, he 
wants Indianapolis to be exactly the "hub" that 
Governor Ray predicted it would be. Whether the 
national Governor in office got his notions from 
the fancies of the deranged ex-Governor, or the 
latter only expanded in his fantastic projects the 
official suggestion of the other, we shall never 
know. But the probability is that the sane Gov- 
ernor profited by the hints he saw in the wild 
talk of the insane Governor. For Governor Noble 
was not a strikingly original genius, and Gov- 
ernor Ray, as eccentric and egotistical as he was, 
had more than an average allowance of brains. 

"After Governor Ray ceased to be Gov- 
ernor he resumed the practice of law, but 
he did not succeed in getting much legal 
business. He seemed to have 'run down 
at the heel,' and, although he was in the 

prime of life, the public appeared to think 
him .superannuated, as having passed his 
day of usefulness. In 1835 he became a 
candidate for clerk of Marion county 
against Robert B. Duncan, Esq., and, for a 
time, seemed bent on making a lively can- 
vass. But, before the election came off, 
he had virtually abandoned the contest. 
Although he did not formally withdraw, 
he had no tickets printed, and when the 
ballots were counted it was found that 
few of them had been cast for him. In 
1887 he ran for Congress, in the Indian- 
apolis district, against William Herrod, 
and was defeated, receiving but 5,888 
votes to his competitor's 9.635. This want 
of appreciation by the public .soured him, 
and made him more eccentric than ever. 

"In the summer of 1848 Governor Ray 
made a trip to Wisconsin and returned 
home by way of the Ohio river. While on 
the river he became unwell and, on reach- 
ing Cincinnati, was taken to the house of 
a relative. The disease proved to be 
cholera, and terminated in his death Au- 
gust 4, 1848. He was buried in Spring 
Grove Cemetery, near Cincinnati, outside 
the State he had helped to found. 

"In his latter days Governor Ray was 
so eccentric that most people thought his 
mind diseased. He always walked with 
a cane, and sometimes he would stop on 
the street and, with his cane, write words 
in the air. It is no wonder that those who 
saw him do this believed him insane. A 
short time before he died he advertised, 
in an Indianapolis paper, a farm and a 
tavern stand for sale, and for a proposi- 
tion to build a railroad from Charleston, 
S. C, through Indianapolis to the north- 
ern lakes, all in one advertisement. 

"In person, Governor Ray, in his young- 
er days, was very prepossessing. He was 
tall and straight, with a body well-propor- 
tioned. He wore his hair long and tied in 
a queue. His forehead was broad and 
high, and his features denoted intelligence 
of a high order. For many years he was 
a leading man of Indiana, and no full his- 
tory of the State can be written without 
frequent mention of his name." 

By birth he was a Kentuckian. 


[Chai'ter IV.] 



y u OAH NOBLE, the fourth elected 

f\ T .. Governor of Indiana, was a na- 
1 1 \l ^^^'^ °-^ Virginia, grew to man- 
|1 1 hood in Kentucky, and located 
'-■■-■'-'" at Brookville about the time In- 
diana was admitted into the 
union. In 1820 he was elected 
sheriff of Franklin county and re-elected 
in 1822. Two years later he was chosen 
a member of the Legislature virtually 
without opposition, only twenty votes hav- 
ing been cast against him. In order to 
guard against his running for county 
clerk the friends of the incumbent of that 
office suggested that Noble be groomed for 
Governor. The suggestion met with high 
favor, and in due course of time he was 
put in training. He easily secured the 
nomination by the Whig party, and al- 
though Jackson Democracy was largely in 
the ascendancy in the State at that time, 
Mr. Noble was elected by a plurality of 
2,791 over James G. Read, Democrat, and 
this in face of the fact that another Whig, 
Milton Stapp by name, was also a candi- 
date for that office and polled 4,422 votes. 
The total vote for Governor cast at the 
election of 1831 reached 37,549, divided 
as follows: 


Noah Noble, Whig 17,959 

James G. Read, Democrat 15,168 

Milton Stapp, Whig 4,422 


David Wallace, Whig 17,101 

Ross Smiley, Democrat 12,858 

James Gregory 5,346 

Three years later, in 1834, Governor 
Noble successfully aspired to a re-election. 

He polled 27,676 votes, his Democratic an- 
tagonist, James G. Read, receiving 19,994. 

For Lieutenant-Governor David Wal- 
lace, Whig, polled 29,415 votes, and David 
V. Culley, Democrat, 14,260. 

Shortly after his retirement from the 
Governorship the Legislature elected him 
as a member of the Board of Public Im- 
provements. In 1841 he was chosen to fill 
another highly important position, that of 
Fund Commissioner. He was held in high 
esteem throughout his career. Born Jan- 
uary 15, 1794, he died in the very prime 
of life, February 8, 1844, near Indiana- 

What happened during Governor No- 
ble's two administrations is thus compre- 
hensively set forth in "A Century of In- 
diana," by Edward E. Moore: 

"Vast System of Internal Improve- 
ments. — Governor Noble was an advocate 
of extensive public improvements, having 
been elected on a platform declaration to 
that effect. He early began the construc- 
tion of the Wabash and Erie Canal, for 
the promotion of which Congress had giv- 
en, in 1827, a large and valuable grant of 
land. This canal was to connect Lake 
Erie with the Wabash river, at a point be- 
low which the river would be navigable; 
and in 1836 a general system of internal 
improvements having been agreed upon, 
consisting of canals, railroads and turn- 
pikes, covering almost the entire State, 
bonds were issued and sold and contracts 
let. Then ensued an era of great prosper- 
ity. There was employment for every- 
body at profitable wages, money was 
plentiful and easy to get and a spirit of 
daring speculation and of general extrava- 
gance seized upon many of the people and 
helped to embitter the unfortunate experi- 



ences so soon to follow. The future, with 
these great improvements completed, was 
pictured in exceedingly bright colors. It 
was thought by some that the revenues to 
be derived from the railroads and canals 
would not only pay for their construction, 
but would build up such a surplus in the 
treasury of the State as to relieve the peo- 
ple of all burdens of taxation. 

"The improvements undertaken con- 
sisted of 1,289 miles of roads, railroads 
and canals at an estimated cost of $19,- 
914,424. Bonds for many millions were 
issued and sold and the State's indebted- 
ness by 1841 had been pushed up to the 
appalling aggregate of $18,469,146. The 
total of roads and canals completed up to 
that time amounted to only 281 miles. 

"The State Embarrassed. — Works Aban- 
doned and Compromise Made With Cred- 
itors — The First Railroad. — It very soon 
became apparent that the State had over- 
estimated its financial resources, and be- 
fore a halt could be called had involved 
itself beyond its ability to pay. And to 
make matters worse, the pall of the great 
panic of 1837 descended upon the whole 
country, at the very time of the State's 
greatest embarrassment. All the works 
had to be abandoned, bringing bankruptcy 
to contractors and distress to thousands 
of citizens. Construction ceased entirely 
in 1839. 

"The State found itself unable to pay 
even the interest on its indebtedness, 
much less to proceed further with the im- 
provements. It finally entered into com- 
promise agreements with its creditors, re- 
lieving itself of a part of the debt and re- 
ducing interest charges. The creditors 
were permitted to take over the unfinished 
improvements in part satisfaction of their 
claims, the balance being paid in new 
bonds, or treasury notes. As a rule, the 
improvements were not completed by the 
new owners, and the State's vast expendi- 
tures were practically for naught. Then 
the securities in the nature of bonds, and 
certificates of stock, to possession of which 
the State was entitled under the compro- 
mise settlements, were not all surren- 
dered, and afterwards attempts were 
made to exact payment of them. Claims 
were also preferred on the grounds that 
the State had rendered the canal prop- 
erties valueless by granting franchises to 
competing railroads. Finally, in 1873, 

after years of agitation and bitterness, an 
amendment to the constitution was 
adopted prohibiting the Legislature for all 
time from paying any of these compro- 
mised debts, particularly that of the Wa- 
bash and Erie Canal. 

"Of all the vast projects undertaken by 
the State, the Madison and Indianapolis 
Railroad alone was fully completed, its 
completion being accomplished by the as- 
signee company to which the State surren- 
dered it. It was the first railroad built 
to Indianapolis, its entrance into that city 
signalizing the year 1847. The Wabash 
and Erie Canal was completed as far as 
Lafayette, and was extensively patronized 
by the people having surplus products to 
transport, but the receipts from tolls were 
not sufficient to maintain it, much less 
produce dividends to apply on cost of con- 
struction. The White Water Canal was 
completed from Lawrenceburg, on the 
Ohio river, to Connersville, and its facil- 
ities for transportation purposes availed 
of by the people for many years. 

"State's Undertaking not Wholly Unad- 
vised. — It would be very unfair for the 
people of this day, enjoying all of their 
wonderful facilities for travel and com- 
merce and trade, to say that the vast un- 
dertakings of 1836 were wholly unadvised. 
The question of 'internal improvements' 
was one of the great issues of the day, not 
only in Indiana, but in other States, and 
in the country at large. The Erie Canal 
in New York, constructed at a cost of $7,- 
000,000, had proved itself a paying invest- 
ment and of vast benefit in facilitating 
travel, in reducing freight rates and in 
settling up the country. And there were 
many other examples of profitable canal 
construction to be held up before the peo- 
ple by the early '30's. The work was not 
taken up hastily in Indiana, or without 
discussion. The need was great, and the 
people, thoroughly in earnest, thought 
they were prepared for whatever sacrifice 
was necessary to meet it. The issue had 
been before them for a decade or more. 
They could not foresee the panic condi- 
tions which set in in 1837, nor the early 
development of the modern railroad. In 
spite of the panic and the financial break- 
down on the part of the State, most of the 
system of improvements planned would 
have been completed eventually, and to 
the incalculable benefit of the State, had 



it not been for the coming of the railroads. 
These early made the canals useless, or 
practically so, as their competition was 
impotent against the more rapid means of 
transit, and their construction ceased, or 
rather was not resumed. 

"The Surplus Revenue Fund.— In 1836 
the United States treasury found itself 
overburdened with a large surplus fund, 
for which there was no immediate or pros- 
pective need. The national debt had been 
extinguished and there was no other de- 
mand to be met outside of the ordinary 
running expenses of the Government. 
Hence, the question arose as to what 
should be done with the surplus. After 
much discussion, Congress decided, by an 
act approved June 23, 1836, to deposit all 
the fund but $5,000,000 with the several 
States, proportioning it among them on 
the basis of their representation in Con- 
gress. The total amount to be thus dis- 
tributed, in four equal installments, was 
$37,468,859. Three of the installments 
were paid to the various States, but be- 
fore the fourth was due the panic of 1837 
had paralyzed the Government revenues 
and no further distribution was ever 
made. Indiana's share of the fund actual- 
ly distributed amounted to $806,254.44.* 

"It was clearly the intention of the Gov- 
ernment that this transaction should be 
considered merely in the nature of a de- 
posit of funds with the States, and that 
repayment would be required, but three- 
quarters of a century have passed without 
any demand being made. And although 
the distribution was not an equitable one, 
when all sections of the country are con- 
sidered, it is unlikely, after such a lapse 
of time, that Congress will ever exact re- 

"By an act of the Legislature of 1837 it 
was directed that one-half of Indiana's 

*D. H. Montgomery, in his "Student's American 
History," says of the transaction: "It was styled 
a 'deposit.' but it was practically a gift. . . . 
Some States divided their share of the money 
among the whole population, each person getting 
a few shillings; others used the money to begin 
great systems of roads, canals, and similar public 
improvements. These works were seldom carried 
to completion, and generally ended by piling up a 
heavy State debt. A few States still hold and use 
the income of the money." All of which would 
indicate that Indiana, by investing her share for 
the benefit of her schools, is one among the very 
few States making wise use of a Government 
bounty so unwisely bestowed. 

portion of this 'surplus revenue fund' be 
distributed among the counties, in pro- 
portion to the enumeration of male citi- 
zens twenty-one years of age and over, in 
amounts not to exceed $400 to any one in- 
dividual, at 8 per cent, interest, and the 
other half inve.sted in stock of the State 
Bank. The interest on the loans and the 
dividends on the bank stock were to be 
turned into the common school fund. 

"Owing to the fact that the first two in- 
stallments went to the counties and the 
fourth was never paid, the fund was not 
equallv divided, the counties receiving 
$537,502.96 and the bank $268,751.48. Of 
the latter sum $40,000 was used to pay in- 
terest on internal improvement bonds, and 
of the portion distributed to the counties 
a large percentage was lost through bad 
loans, carelessness in enforcing collections 
and depression in values of mortgages and 
other securities resulting from the panic 
of 1837. The portion recovered was 
turned over to the State Bank in 1841, and 
this, and the original investment in stock 
of the bank proved so fortunate, yielding 
large and certain dividends, that the fund 
more than restored itself. With the clos- 
ing of the State Bank in 1859, the money 
was transferred to the State treasury and 
reinve.sted through the counties for the 
benefit of the schools. It now constitutes 
a very important item of the State's mag- 
nificent common school endowment. 

"The State Bank of Indiana.— The State 
Bank of Indiana, which proved to be a 
most successful and stable institution, was 
chartered in 1834. The charter provided 
for the establishment of twelve branches 
and the thirteenth was later added. The 
capital stock authorized was $1,600,000, 
of which the State agreed to subscribe 
one-half. It had a complete monopoly, as 
no other banks were permitted to operate 
in the State. During the panic of 1837 it 
was compelled to suspend specie payment 
temporarily, but resumed in 1842, and 
from that date until its charter expired in 
1859 it never failed to meet all demands 
upon it, and enjoyed the reputation of be- 
ing one of the best managed and re- 
liable banking institutions in the West. 

"Lssue of State Scrip — 'Red Dog' and 
'Blue Pup' Currency — Days of 'Wildcat' 
Money. — During the stress of its difficul- 
ties attendant upon the collapse of the in- 
ternal improvement system, and the gen- 


1 6 - 1 9 1 €( 

eral panic which enveloped the whole 
country, Indiana was compelled in 1839 to 
resort to the expedient of issuing State 
scrip. The entire extent of such issue 
amounted to $1,500,000. It bore 6 per 
cent, interest and was receivable for taxes, 
but rapidly depreciated until its market 
value was only 40 to 50 cents on the dollar. 
It was printed on red paper, and the peo- 
ple desrisively called it 'red dog' currency. 
It was finally redeemed and was worth a 
large premium at the last, due partly to 
the restoration of confidence in the finan- 
cial integrity of the State and partly to the 
accumulated interest. 

"Before the panic was over merchants, 
plank-road contractors and others resorted 
to the issuance of private scrip. It is 
needless to say that its circulating value 
also quickly fell below par, and taking 
their cue from the fact that it was printed 
mostly on blue paper, the people called it 
'blue pup' currency, as distinguished 
from the State's 'red dog' currency. 
Much of the private scrip was redeemable 
only in trade, or merchandise, or toll on 
the plank roads. The State was flooded 
with 'wildcat' currency in the form of de- 
preciated paper put out by 'banks of 
issue' in surrounding States, which drove 
good money out of circulation." 


Sons of Pennsylvania seem to have been 
in favor with the voters of the young Com- 
monwealth of Indiana, as made manifest 
in the choice of Governors. David Wal- 
lace, who succeeded Noah Noble in the 
gubernatorial chair, 1837, was born in 
Mifflin county, Pennsylvania, April 24, 
1799. General Harrison was instrumental 
in having young Wallace made a cadet at 
West Point. Graduated in 1821, he be- 
came a tutor in that institution, serving 
as such a short time, then enlisting in the 
army as lieutenant of artillery. His father 
having located in Brookville, that pictur- 
esque Indiana town became his place of 
residence. He studied law, and several 
years after his admission to the bar was 
elected to the Legislature three times in 
succession— 1828, 1829 and 1830. In 1831 
he was elected Lieutenant-Governor and 

re-elected in 1834. It is said that as pre- 
siding officer of the State he had few 
equals and no superior. In recognition of 
his demonstrated ability, his party 
(Whig) nominated him for Governor. 
His Democratic competitor was John Du- 
mont, an able and distinguished lawyer 
residing at Vevay, on the southern border 
of the State. The vote stood: Wallace, 
45,240; Dumont, 36,197. For Lieutenant- 
Governor, David Willis, Whig, had 48,823 ; 
Alexander S. Burnett, Democrat, 22,311. 
Elected as a champion of the internal 
improvement policy, inaugurated by his 
predecessors, Governor Wallace did his ut- 
most to make that undertaking a success. 
With all the ability and resourcefulness at 
his command, he found himself unable to 
save from wreckage the stupendous en- 
terprises into which the State had been 
lured by enthusiasts and visionaries — 
well-meaning, it is true, but woefully un- 
mindful of that cautionary admonition, 
"look before you leap." Having done his 
best, his party turned him the cold shoul- 
der when he sought a renomination 
in 1840. With characteristic ingrati- 
tude for service well rendered, the 
Whig convention of 1840 nominated 
for Governor Samuel Bigger, a gen- 
tleman who had been prominently 
identified with the internal improve- 
ment scheme of that decade. Without a 
murmur of complaint, Governor Wallace 
accepted defeat, and at the completion of 
his term of office resumed the practice of 
law. A year after he was elected to Con- 
gress from the Indianapolis district, de- 
feating the popular Colonel Nathan B. 
Palmer. Seeking a re-election in 1843, he 
met with defeat at the hands of William 
J. Brown, who beat him by 1,085 votes. 
The demoralization of the Whig party by 
the political defection of President John 
Tyler doubtless had much to do with 
bringing about this result. Undaunted 
by political adversity, he pursued assidu- 
ously the practice of his profession. In 



1846 he permitted himself to be made 
Chairman of the Whig State Committee, 
and in 1850 he was made a member of the 
Constitutional Convention that framed 
the organic law under which Indiana still 
operates its governmental machinery. 
Despite his superb ability as a debater, he 
took but little part in the delibei'ations of 
that body. This occasioned grievous dis- 
appointment to his friends and admirers. 
The most noteworthy statement credited 
to him in the records of the Constitutional 
Convention is the declaration that while a 
member of Congress he voted for the ex- 
pulsion from that body of the high priest 
of abolitionism, Joshua R. Giddings, on 
account of his persistence in stirring up 
sectional animosity between North and 
South. Giddings then represented the 
famous "Western Reserve" (of Ohio) in 
Congress and took high rank as one of the 
most outspoken and defiant anti-slavery 
agitators of the land. The last official po- 
sition filled by Governor Wallace was that 
of Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, to 
which he was elected in 1856 and which he 
filled with marked ability. He died sud- 
denly on the 4th of September, 1859. In 
eulogy he was declared to have been "a 
just judge — firm, upright, clear, patient, 
laborious, impartial and conscientious"- — 
certainly a very high and appreciable 
tribute to honesty, integrity and efficiency. 
His oratory was of the choicest phrase- 
ology and of inspiring delivery. 


A native of Ohio succeeded, in 1840, a 
native of Pennsylvania as Governor of In- 
diana. His name was Samuel Bigger, a 
product of Warren county, Ohio, born 
March 20, 1802. He was the son of John 
Bigger, a Western pioneer, and for many 
years a member of the Ohio Legislature. 
Though reared on a farm, he was frail of 
body, too delicate to perform manual la- 
bor. Accordingly he was prepared for col- 

lege. As the result of earnest applica- 
tion to his studies he graduated from 
Athens University and then fitted himself 
for the legal profession. In 1829 he 
moved to Liberty, Ind., where he practiced 
law for a short time, and then located at 
Rushville. Like other Indiana lawyers, he 
sought and secured a seat in the Legisla- 
ture, being first elected in 1834 and re- 
elected in 1835. The first year of his legis- 
lative career he sought to be elected 
Speaker, but was defeated by Colonel 
James Gregory by a 39 to 37 vote. After 
his legislative service he became a judge 
of his judicial circuit. In this position he 
made a creditable record. The reputation 
thus gained secured him the Whig nom- 
ination for Governor in 1840 over Gov- 
ernor Wallace, a much abler man and a 
far more forceful and eloquent public 
speaker. The campaign was a most excit- 
ing one. It was the famous "Tippecanoe 
and Tyler too" campaign, in which figured 
conspicuously and fantastically the log 
cabin, hard cider and coon skins. General 
Harrison was immensely popular in In- 
diana, having for years been its Terri- 
torial Governor. Though Indiana had 
three times voted for "Old Hickory" for 
the Presidency, it refused to give its elec- 
toral vote to Jackson's legatee, Martin 
Van Buren, either in 1836 or in 1840. 


The Dem.ocrats had as their candidate 
for Governor an exceptionally able, strong 
and good man in the person of General 
Tilghman A. Howard, then a member of 
Congress from the seventh district. He 
was a native of South Carolina, but his 
boyhood days were spent in North Caro- 
lina until he was nineteen years of age. 
Fascinated by the picturesque scenery of 
East Tennessee, he located in that part of 
the Union, following the pursuit of a 
school teacher and then of a merchant's 
clerk. He drifted into a law office, and at 
the age of twenty-one was admitted to 


19 16 

the bar. Having developed high qualities 
as a public speaker, an appreciative elec- 
torate made him, at the age of twenty- 
seven, a State Senator. In this capacity- 
he soon won prominence and distinction, 
so much so that he was placed upon the 
Jackson electoral ticket in 1828 and tri- 
umphantly elected. Two years later he 
became a resident of Indiana, locating at 
Bloomington, where he opened a law ofRce 
and soon after formed a copartnership 
with James Whitcomb, who, in the follow- 
ing decade, became Governor and later on 
United States Senator. After a residence 
of about three years at Bloomington, 
Howard concluded that the town of Rock- 
ville, in Parke county, would prove a more 
advantageous location for him. He, how- 
ever, continued his business relations with 
Mr. Whitcomb until 1836, when he dis- 
solved it and associated himself with 
Judge William P. Bryant. This connec- 
tion continued three years, when Judge 
Bryant withdrew from the firm. His place 
was taken by Joseph A. Wright, who, like 
Mr. Whitcomb, also in later years became 
Governor, and for a short time United 
States Senator. This combination of tal- 
ent continued up to the time of Howard's 

As an ardent supporter of "Old Hick- 
ory," Howard was appointed United 
States District Attorney for Indiana in 
1832. This important office he held for 
seven years. In 1839 he made the race 
for a seat in Congress and was tri- 
umphantly elected. His district com- 
prised nineteen counties in the western 
and northern parts of the State, extending 
clear over to Michigan City. Contrary to 
his wishes he was made the Democratic 
nominee for Governor in 1840. He en- 
tered upon a very vigorous campaign, at 
the close of which he was worn down by 
fatigue and disease. Yet he murmured 
not. His strong religious faith lent him 
stamina and afforded him serene buoyancy 
even in the hour of defeat, distress and 

disaster. In the truest sense of the word 
he was a Christian gentleman of steadfast 

During the time he served as District 
Attorney of Indiana it became necessary 
for the Jackson administration, in 1835, 
to appoint a commissioner for the purpose 
of adjusting and settling a number of 
claims against the Government growing 
out of treaties with the Indians. This 
task was considered one of unusual 
delicacy and of utmost importance. There 
was much difference of opinion among 
President Jackson's cabinet officers as to 
who should be selected for this position, 
when "Old Hickory" himself solved the 
problem by suggesting Tilghman A. 
Howard as the very man needed and best 
suited for this difficult task. Needless to 
say that the selection fully met the expec- 
tations of the administration. General 
Howard proved himself the right man in 
the right place — the very soul of honor 
and integrity. 

While serving as a member of Congress, 
and after having been selected to make the 
race for Governor, the suggestion was 
made, the latter part of May, 1840, that 
some sort of State demonstration be made 
in his behalf at Indianapolis, including a 
dinner. To this suggestion he made this 
characteristic reply: 

"I have considered the matter. It is not 
democratic, and would be, to a certain ex- 
tent, imitating the folly of our antago- 
nists. Freemen ought to meet together to 
reason on public interests when they as- 
semble for political effect, and allow me 
to say to you that the mass of our people 
will not be any the more zealous by any 
public demonstration. They will turn out 
to hear debate. I shall have as many as 
I deserve to have to hear me, and my wish 
is to have no demonstration, no proces- 
sion, no flags, no drums, nor any other 
exhibition unworthy of a free, thinking, 
orderly community. I shall leave here at 
the very earliest day and hurry home and 
you may rely on it I will be at several 
points yet in Indiana before the election 
(in August). Allow my suggestion to 



prevail. Let us be what Democracy should 
be, too independent to be deceived by 
shows or led away by them; possessing 
too much respect for our fellow-men to at- 
tempt to mislead them on those great sub- 
jects that concern the general happiness." 

The Legislature chosen in 1842 having 
a United States Senator to elect, the can- 
vass of that year was made mainly upon 
that issue. The Whigs supported Oliver 
H. Smith, and the Democrats General 
Howard. No other man was spoken of in 
connection with the office until after the 
Legislature met. The two candidates met 
just before the Legislature convened and 
had a talk about the Senatorship. General 
Howard said to Mr. Smith that he knew 
one of them would be elected if the will of 
the people was carried out. "But," said 
he, "the vote will be so close that a man or 
two may be found who, like Judas, would 
sell his party for a few pieces of silver. 
There is nothing certain." That General 
Howard was correct events proved. On 
the first ballot he received 74 votes, Mr. 
Smith 72 votes, Edward A. Hannegan 
3 votes and Joseph G. Marshall 1 vote. It 
will be seen that Howard lacked two votes 
of election. It was said at the time these 
votes were offered him if he would promise 
office to the givers, but he scorned the 
proffer. On the sixth ballot Mr. Hanne- 
gan was elected. General Howard having 
withdrawn from the contest. 

In the summer of 1844 General Howard 
was appointed by President Tyler Charge 
d'Affaires to the Republic of Texas. He 
left home on the Fourth of July and 
reached Washington, the capital of Texas, 
August 1, 1844. In a few days he was 
taken sick with fever, and in fifteen days 
from the time of his arrival he died. He 
breathed his last at the house of John Far- 
quher, a few miles from Washington. He 
was buried in Texas, and for three years 
his remains rested in that far-off- country. 

Adopting the language of William Wes- 
ley Woollen, "General Howard was a mem- 
ber of the Presbyterian church, but he 

was not a sectarian. He believed there 
were many branches of the same vine, 
many paths leading to the straight gate. 
He was too great to be a bigot, too good to 
have no charity." 

General Howard was always dignified 
in public. He seldom indulged in levity; 
but notwithstanding this, he had the fac- 
ulty of drawing all classes of men to him. 
The sober and the gay, the lettered and 
the unlettered alike followed his fortunes. 

Although General Howard never at- 
tended an academy or a college, he was a 
very learned man. He was acquainted 
with the civil law, with theology, history, 
politics, geology, mineralogy, botany, 
philosophy and the occult sciences. His 
mind was a vast storehouse of knowledge, 
it being questionable if there was another 
man in the State of such information 
as he. 

During the canvass of 1840 a newspaper 
published at Greencastle sought to make 
political capital against General Howard 
by commenting upon his well-known 
opinions on temperance. When he spoke 
in that town he read the article and told 
the editor to get out another edition of his 
paper and throw it broadcast over the 
State. "I want every voter to know my 
opinions on this question," said Howard. 
"I am willing to stand by them, and, if 
need be, fall by them." 

In a debate with a gentleman who 
evaded the issues and went out after side 
ones. General Howard told the following 
story, and applied it to his opponent: 
"Once," said he, "a representative from 
Buncombe county made a speech in the 
North Carolina Legislature, in which he 
talked of many things entirely foreign to 
the matter before the House, and on be- 
ing called to order by the Speaker, and 
told to confine himself to the question at 
issue, replied : 'My speech is not for the 
Legislature; it is all for Buncombe.' " "All 
for Buncombe" became a common saying, 
and has remained such to the present day. 


19 1 

As has already been stated, General 
Howard died and was buried in Texas. 
But the people of Indiana were not willing 
that his dust should commingle with for- 
eign soil. The Legislature of 1847 passed 
an act directing the Governor and Gen- 
eral Joseph Lane "to have the remains of 
Tilghman A. Howard removed from their 
place of burial in Texas and reinterred at 
such place in Indiana as his family might 
desire." The act was approved by his 
friend and former partner, James Whit- 
comb, then Governor of the State. The 
will of the Legislature was carried out, 
and the remains of Howard disinterred 
and brought to Indiana. They remained a 
while at Indianapolis, receiving high 
honors. From thence they were taken 
to Greencastle, where like honors 
awaited them. They were then removed 
to Rockville, his old home, and interred in 
his orchard. Previous to placing the coffin 
in the ground, Professor William C. Lar- 
rabee, afterward Indiana's first Superin- 
tendent of Public Instruction, delivered a 
eulogy upon the dead statesman, replete 
with beautiful thoughts. It closed as fol- 

"Take him and bury him among you. 
Bury him where the primrose and the 
violet bloom in vernal beauty, where the 
rose of summer sheds its fragrance, and 
where the leaves of autumn fall, to pro- 
tect the spot from the cheerless blast of 
the wintry winds. Bury him in that rural 
bower on the hillside, within sight of his 
quiet cottage home. Bury him by the side 

of the pretty child he loved so well — the 
beauteous little girl, who, years ago, died 
suddenly when the father was away from 
home. Bury him now by her, that child 
and father may sleep side by side. Ye 
need erect no costly monument, with la- 
bored inscription, over his grave. On a 
plain stone inscribe the name of Howard, 
of Indiana's Howard, and it shall be 

Senator David Turpie pronounced 
Tilghman A. Howard "A man of rare ca- 
pacity, wisdom and discretion, and of 
singular purity of life and morals. Even 
the venial excesses so common in the cus- 
toms of that time, and so often indulged 
in by those engaged in public life, he care- 
fully avoided. Wholly free from cant, 
without the slightest trace of the formal- 
ist or Pharisee in his demeanor, he yet 
would not in these things conform, but 
went his own way, as he had chosen. 
. . . Many persons have spoken to me 
of Mr. Howard, and all have made mention 
of the depth and sincerity of his religious 
convictions. In every circumstance of 
life he acted as if he were in the presence 
and under the protection of his Maker — 
not, as he believed, that general care taken 
of the young ravens or of the sparrows in 
their fall, but that concern more immedi- 
ate, spoken of by the Psalmist of the 
Friends : 

" 'I know not where His islands lift 
Their fronded palms in air, 

I only know I cannot drift 
Beyond His love and care.' " 

[Chapter V.] 



EFORE proceeding to a review 
of the "Tippecanoe and Tyler 
too" campaign of 1840, it is 
quite important and essential 
to a clear understanding of the 
situation that some attention be 
given to the financial and in- 
dustrial condition of the country, to the 
questions of moment upon which there 
was marked division of public opinion, 
and the causes that led to a crystallization 
of the forces of opposition to the Van 
Buren administration. 

As tersely yet comprehensively epitom- 
ized by General Thomas E. Powell, the 
United States Bank, in the year 1816, re- 

"A charter for twenty years. The 
law that created the bank also provided 
that the national revenue should be de- 
posited in that bank to be paid out by it 
in accordance with directions it should re- 
ceive from time to time from the Treas- 
ury Department. The Secretary of the 
Treasury had, however, the right to re- 
move these deposits whenever, in his 
judgment, the public interest demanded 
the change. The intention of the law un- 
questionably was that the national de- 
posits should be continued in the bank as 
long as the bank continued to be a safe de- 
pository and performed its duties accord- 
ing to law. In his message to Congress in 
1829, 1830 and 1831, President Jackson 
expressed strong dislike of the United 
States Bank. A great many people in the 
country were in favor of continuing the 
bank, and Jackson's political opponents 
conceived the idea that if the bank were 
rechartered it would hamper Jackson in 
the Presidential election of 1832. Henry 
Clay was at that time endeavoring to clear 
his own path to the Presidency; conse- 
quently he favored the rechartering of the 
bank, hoping thereby to handicap Jack- 

"Under the fine manipulation of Clay, 
both Houses of Congress, in the winter of 
1832, passed a bill providing for the re- 
newal of the charter of the bank. Presi- 
dent Jackson promptly vetoed the bill. 
His opponents had felt sure that he would 
not venture to take this step. They 
thought it would make him enemies and 
increase the strength of the National Re- 
publicans, of which Clay was the leader. 
In the next Congress, however, Jackson 
had a majority of his own supporters and 
no further attempt was made to renew 
the charter of the bank. 

"The bank's charter would not expire 
until 1836, but the fight being on, Jack- 
son was not willing to allow the bank to 
die a natural death. He therefore decided 
to remove the national deposits, giving as 
his reason for this act that they were un- 
safe in the United States Bank. He 
brought the matter before Congress dur- 
ing the session of 1833. But the House 
of Representatives expressed an aversion 
to the project. He then brought the mat- 
ter up in his Cabinet, but Duane, the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury, firmly declared 
he could not conscientiously consent to the 
measure. Then, as Duane would not re- 
move the deposits. President Jackson re- 
moved Duane and appointed Roger B. 
Taney in his stead. Secretary Taney at 
once issued an order for the removal of 
the deposits from the National Bank to 
the State banks. The banks to which the 
deposits were distributed immediately be- 
came known as 'pet banks.' 

"The National Republicans all over the 
country were loud in their denunciations 
of Jackson, and the managers of the 
United States Bank at once set out for re- 
venge, and for financial self-protection. 
They proceeded to call in their loans and 
then restricted discounts. Inside of a few 
months they had forced the collection of 
many millions of dollars. They knew the 
efi"ect this would have upon the country, 
but the managers of the bank declared 
that they had made their loans on the 

(65 ) 


19 1 

credit of the Government deposits, and 
this being withdrawn, they were com- 
pelled to call in their loans. The result 
was financial troubles in the winter of 
1836 and such men as Daniel Webster and 
Henry Clay laid the responsibility for 
these troubles at the President's door. 
Jackson was denounced all over the land 
as high-handed and tyrannical, and he 
was charged with taking control of the 
National Treasury, of which the repre- 
sentatives of the people in Congress were 
the constitutional guardians. Meanwhile 
the State banks which had received the 
surplus revenue regarded it as a perma- 
nent deposit, capital in short, and pro- 
ceeded to enlarge their operations accord- 
ingly. So it came about that men who 
were permitted to borrow from the State 
banks what they actually needed could 
now borrow what they might wish. Spec- 
ulation largely increased; Western lands, 
steamboat lines, new roads, suburban 
tracts, any project which the speculator 
might present, found ready investors, and 
thus the destruction of the United States 
Bank led directly to the panic of 1837. 

"The usual causes which have produced 
so many and almost periodical monetary 
depressions in our history played their 
part in the panic of 1837, and prominent 
among them were speculation, undue ex- 
tension of credits, unproductive invest- 
ments and large, unwarranted expendi- 

"It should also be mentioned that an 
element of disturbance was projected into 
the financial situation in 1834 when an act 
of Congress changed the relative values of 
gold and silver from fifteen to one to six- 
teen to one in order to promote the cir- 
culation of gold. Besides all this the 
financial stringency in England, France, 
Belgium and over the continent of Europe 
generally tended to aggravate the situa- 
tion in the United States. 

"The distribution of public funds to pet 
banks caused those institutions to encour- 
age customers to borrow money. This led 
to speculation in all kinds of projects, the 
most important of which was Western 
lands. These lands were purchased by 
speculators, paid for in notes, sold at an 
advance to another speculator and again 
paid for in notes ; the operations to be re- 
peated over and over as the boom in val- 
ues progressed. Labor was drawn from 

productive to unproductive work; men 
rich in bonds, soon to be worthless, ac- 
cumulated debts beyond all reason. 

"This speculation in public lands swift- 
ly grew to enormous proportions. In 1829 
the sale of public lands amounted to a 
little over $1,500,000. In 1830 it was 
$2,300,000; in 1832 $2,600,000; in 1833 
$3,900,000; in 1834 $4,800,000; in 1835 
$14,757,000; in 1836 $24,877,000. In 1836 
President Jackson determined to check 
the wild speculation which had developed 
all over the land. To do so he issued an 
order that the land oflSces should receive 
nothing but gold and silver or certificates 
of deposit in specie in the United States 
Treasury in payment for land. The law 
at that time was that all except actual set- 
tlers should pay for land in gold or silver, 
but the law was not maintained. In that 
year the Government deposits with the 
'pet banks' had reached the sum of $41,- 
500,000. As soon as Jackson issued his 
specie circular Congress ordered the 
money in the banks to be distributed 
among the several States in proportion to 
the number of Presidential electors to 
which each State was entitled, the money 
to be used for internal improvements. 
Now the banks had looked upon this 
money as a permanent deposit and had 
loaned it to customers. With vaults full 
of paper securities, how could they pay 
in gold? The gold had disappeared and 
in its place was paper, which, when the 
crisis came, nobody would take. The 
order of Congress therefore embarrassed 
the banks, crippled the speculators, with- 
drew money from circulation and pre- 
cipitated the terrible financial calamity of 

"The specie circular tied up the public ; 
the distribution of the Treasury surplus 
to the States tied up the banks. Loans 
had to be called in and accommodations to 
business men were greatly restricted. In 
March, 1837, England began to look to 
America for remittances of specie through 
bills on American houses. American 
houses were not able to pay their bills in 
specie, and from April 1 to April 10 
more than one hundred failures occurred 
in New York City. Before the end of 
April the failures were too numerous to 
be recorded. From the metropolis the 
commercial paralysis spread all over the 



"It then became apparent that to survey 
the wilderness did not convert it into 
farms nor would platting farms build 
cities. The spirit of speculation had pro- 
duced in the public mind a state of en- 
chantment like that of the poet, Bryant, 
when he wrote 'The Prairie.' Standing 
upon an uninhabited tract his fancy ran 
riot until he not only saw cultivated fields 
and populous cities, but heard the voices 
of people yet to be. When he became 
hungry he went back to dinner. So it was 
with the people of this country in 1837. 
They were rich on paper and in prospects 
yet to be realized. When they had to have 
three meals a day, wear clothes and pay 
notes at the bank they found it necessary 
to get back to cold facts. The only facts 
which were of any use when disaster came 
were gold and silver. These could be ob- 
tained only by earning them, and as that 
would take time the disaster could not be 
averted. That wild speculation in land 
was a large contributing cause to the 
panic is plainly indicated by the fact that 
in 1842 sales of land had fallen to less 
than one and a half million dollars from 
twenty-five millions in 1836. 

"President Van Buren was importuned 
to have the Government interfere between 
the speculators and disaster; to have the 
Government identify itself with com- 
merce, in fact. This the President refused 
to do. What he did do was call a special 
session of Congress which convened in 
September, 1837, and to which he sent a 
message which deserves to be ranked as 
one of the greatest state papers in Amer- 
ica. In that message he proposed the 
establishment of a sub-treasury system 
such as exists today. Congress, however, 
refused to pass his sub-treasury bill. It 
did pass the Senate by a vote of 26 to 20, 
but was defeated in the House. His great 
idea was to receive recognition later on, 

"In his message to the extra session of 
Congress President Van Buren pointed 
out that the Government had not caused 
and could not cure the profound commer- 
cial disaster; that all banks had stopped 
specie payments and that therefore some 
other custody of public moneys must be 
provided; that the Government could not 
help the people to earn their living but 
it could refuse to aid the deception that 
paper was gold and the delusion that 

values could be created without labor. In 
the face of a storm of abuse he took a firm 
and magnificent stand, but his statesman- 
ship on that occasion did him no good, but 
rather harm. The country was in distress 
and looked to him for aid which he was 
unable to give, and with that unreason 
inseparable from a panic of any kind he 
was held responsible for all trouble and 
became the object of unsparing denuncia- 

Conditions in the country at large, so 
lucidly and intelligently described in the 
foregoing review, were supplemented and 
aggravated by the then existing conditions 
in Indiana. The influx of population rep- 
resented a class of people who sought to 
better themselves by utilizing the bound- 
less opportunities here presented, espe- 
cially in agricultural pursuits. Fertile 
land in abundance was to be had for a 
mere pittance, as compared with prices in 
the more extensively settled regions of the 
East and South. Many of those who came 
from the South were hostile to slavery. 
Scant means did not admit of acquiring 
plantations in States like Virginia. Their 
pride did not permit them to work among 
slaves. As well stated by Logan Esarey 
in his "Internal Improvements in Indi- 
ana" : "One can scarcely realize the con- 
dition of Indiana in 1825. There was no 
railroad, no canal, no pike. All her rivers 
except the Ohio were obstructed by fallen 
trees, ripples and bars. Two stage lines 
led to Indianapolis, one from Madison, the 
other from Centerville. The service was 
bad, roads frequently impassable, and 
stages usually late." 

Transportation was the great problem 
calling for solution. In the parlance of 
the day, it was the paramount issue — the 
momentous question aff"ecting every in- 
habitant of the State. Wheat and corn in 
abundance could be produced, but by rea- 
son of inadequate transportation facili- 
ties there was no profit in raising grain 
that cost three times as much to haul to 
Cincinnati as the farmer realized there- 
from in disposing of it to the local dealer. 




Need any one wonder that the tillers of 
the soil chafed under these conditions and 
that they lent a listening ear to every 
scheme that gave any sort of promise of 

Human nature in those days M^as not 
much different from what it is today. The 
life of a pioneer settler in Indiana was far 
from an easy one. Hardship was in evi- 
dence wherever one's eye might be turned. 
Relief could come from one source 
only — ^transportation facilities. Immature 
thought was the great stumbling block to 
a realization of this blessing. Had the 
power of organized effort been invoked; 
had patience been cultivated and im- 
petuosity curbed; had feasibility been 
made paramount to plausibility; had wis- 
dom and practicability been insisted upon 
before plunging heedlessly into this or 
that scheme — in short, had good, strong, 
common sense been injected into the move- 
ment for the inauguration of internal im- 
provements from the very start and rigid- 
ly adhered to as the work progressed, a 
mountain-high debt would not have been 
piled up and bankruptcy would not have 
discredited and dishonored the State. 

It would be well if every thoughtful 
citizen of the State could be induced to 
procure a copy of Logan Esarey's history 
of "Internal Improvements of Indiana" 
and give the same studious perusal. It is 
not a tiresome presentation of the subject 
elaborated and discussed, but a very read- 
able and highly instructive contribution to 
the historic literature of Indiana. The 
facts therein set forth ought to be brought 
.to the knowledge of every man and woman 
who cares to be enlightened with refer- 
ence to the trials and tribulations that 
were encountered by Indiana's pioneers 
during the formative period, 1826 to 1840. 

The lesson which the internal improve- 
ment mania teaches is that a too ready re- 
sponse to and compliance with popular 
clamor more often entails injury than it 
confers benefits. That famous, courage- 

ous and fearless journalist, Horace Gree- 
ley, once upon a time declared that it was 
his purpose to give to the readers of his 
Neiv York Tribime "not so much what 
they would like to read as what they ought 
to know." Had there been a combination 
of influential, practical men resolved upon 
first ascertaining what the State needed 
and ought to have been supplied with in 
the line of transportation facilities, it is 
not improbable that a carefully worked- 
out plan might have been adopted by the 
State and put into practical use and opera- 
tion. Of course, the fact must not be lost 
sight of that local jealousies were certain 
to be encountered. That bane of society 
is not easily repressed. Every locality 
thinks its claims should be first considered 
and its wants first supplied. If politi- 
cians, legislators, statesmen and public 
journals could be brought to the under- 
standing that the common welfare should 
have first consideration, the spirit of 
jealousy and envy might more easily be 
held in subjection. A striking illustra- 
tion of this truism was furnished in the 
adjoining State of Illinois where that 
superb statesman, Stephen A. Douglas, 
exerted a most beneficent influence by de- 
vising sundry safeguards in granting 
franchises to railroads and other corpora- 
tions. He foresaw probabilities that came 
to a realization during his life-time and 
that in course of time brought millions 
upon millions of dollars into the State 
treasury, thus conferring a direct benefit 
upon the taxpayers of Illinois without im- 
posing any real hardships upon the cor- 
porations as they developed, grew and 
prospered as a result of the steady in- 
crease of population engendered by the 
creation and operation of transportation 
lines for the convenience, comfort and ad- 
vancement of a thrifty people. 

Leadership, properly, wisely and un- 
selfishly applied, rarely fails to produce 
results that prove beneficial and advan- 
tageous to the community, the State or 



the nation at large. However vehemently 
leadership may be decried by demagogues 
who delight in tickling the vanity of what 
they assume to constitute "the people," it 
is . an incontrovertible truth that sound, 
safe, wise and sagacious leadership has 
ever proved a benefit and a blessing to 
communities that had the good sense to 
accept and utilize the same. Under a rep- 
resentative system of government leader- 
ship is as essential as is the direction of 
forces in the construction of buildings, 
bridges, highways, etc. To lead, guide 
and direct is but another form of expres- 
sion for bringing order out of chaos. 
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, 
Lincoln, Douglas, Tilden, Thurman and 
Hendricks were, in their day and genera- 
tion, leaders of men, and the people 
profited by heeding their counsel and giv- 
ing emphasis to their views by causing 
them to be enacted into law. 

In his history of the Ohio Democracy, 
General Thomas E. Powell expresses the 
opinion that 

"It is doubtful if in any American cam- 
paign any political party has used so 
much buncombe and so little brains 
as did the Whigs in the presiden- 
tial campaign of 1840. Yet they won. On 
the Whigs' side it was a popular rush to 
a circus where the admission was free 
and all who attended could take part in 
the festive performance. Enormous po- 
litical meetings were held and these were 
attended not by men alone but by entire 
families; fathers, mothers, sons and 
daughters all turned out. There were 
Revolutionary soldiers marching in pro- 
cession; there were bands of music and 
there were barrels of cider; there was 
speech making and festivity, and for a 
sideshow there was a log cabin with the 
latchstring hanging out and a live coon 
inside. The log cabin and the coon traveled 
by wagon from place to place and the bar- 
rels of cider were supplied by the com- 
munities. The voice of the spellbinder 
was heard in the land ; there was so much 
enthusiasm that there was no time for 
thought. It w^as the proletariat running 
loose in a bloodless raid. 

"Many causes have been assigned for 
the political revolution of 1839-40 which 
swept Democrats out of power in the State 
and nation and placed the young Whig 
party in the ascendency. Van Buren's 
espousal of an independent treaty would, 
at the first glance, seem to be the rock 
upon which he foundered. This would 
imply that in 1840 the majority of the 
people of the United States preferred the 
national bank to the sub-treasury system. 
In preparing its platform the Whig party 
was very careful to avoid a declaration on 
that point ; nevertheless it undid the work 
done by Van Buren toward the establish- 
ment of an independent treasury system. 
During the campaign Van Buren was as- 
sailed for his sub-treasury plan and no 
doubt many imagined they could trace the 
troubles of 1837 to the destruction of the 
United States Bank, and consequently en- 
tertained the belief that a return to the 
old order of things would be wise. Yet 
the Whigs as well as the Democrats con- 
demned the 'pet bank' system. It is there- 
fore improbable that his advocacy of the 
sub-treasury system was the cause of 
Van Buren's defeat. The fact is he was 
held responsible for both the real and 
imaginary errors of President Jackson. 
Also he had been President during a great 
commercial crisis and the people, not only 
of that day but of this, have a strange 
habit of laying all their commercial 
troubles at the door of the White House. 

" had been bad during most of 
Van Buren's regime and the general cry 
was for a change. Things might be bet- 
ter, they could not well be worse, or so the 
people apparently thought. That the com- 
mercial troubles which occurred during 
Van Buren's administration and the con- 
sequent desire for a change led to the de- 
feat of himself and his party is made 
absolutely clear by the speeches of Daniel 
Webster during that campaign. Like all 
politicians the great Webster was afflicted 
with a political bias. He must have known 
that Van Buren's attitude during the re- 
cent troublous times had been grand ; and 
if he had possessed to any degree the fore- 
sight with which statesmen are usually 
credited or the intellect for which he was 
renowned, he must have seen that the 
sub-treasuiy system would prove vastly 
superior to the national bank. Indeed, it 
is to be presumed that he did see and un- 


derstand these things, for in his speeches 
he studiously avoided logic and regaled 
his audiences with dogmas and eloquence. 
Everywhere he went he cried out to his 
hearers : 

" 'Every breeze says change ; the cry, 

the universal cry is for change.' Change 
was the keynote of his oratory and change 
became the watchword of his party 
throughout that memorable election. It 
was the only argument they had, but it 

[Chapter VI.] 



mHE "Tippecanoe and Tyler 
= too" campaign was both unique 
and grotesque. It stands 
without a parallel in the 
' annals of American politics. 

In Ohio and Indiana the 
enthusiasm for William Henry 
Harrison was doubtless intensified by 
the fact that he was "one of them" — 
both Ohioan and Indianian. Log cabins 
were built and exultantly carried in spec- 
tacular processions. Coon skins were dis- 
played on poles, and barrels of hard cider 
were dispensed to thirsty ones at the big 
rallies, political gatherings, picnics, etc. It 
was a great time for the exuberant and the 
emotional. From the very beginning of 
the campaign it had become apparent that 
victory was in store for the Whigs. Mar- 
tin Van Buren, the elegant and accom- 
plished New York gentleman, was at a 
discount with the sturdy Westerners, who 
recognized in William Henry Harrison one 
after their own heart. At the November 
election Van Buren carried but two North- 
ern States — Illinois and New Hampshire 
— and only five States in the South. The 
result in Illinois was chiefly due to the 
tremendous efi'ort put forth by the idol- 
ized "Little Giant," Stephen A. Douglas. 
As a matter of fact it was more of a tri- 
umph for Douglas than a victory for Van 
Buren. In the Electoral College Harrison 
had 234 votes, Van Buren 60, but the 
popular vote shows no such disparity in 
strength as might be inferred from these 
figures. On the popular vote Harrison had 
1,275,017; Van Buren, 1,128,702. Not- 
withstanding the fact that Van Buren 
suifered a crushing defeat in 1840, his 
vote in that losing contest was 350,000 

greater than he polled four years before 
when he was triumphantly elected as the 
successor of "Old Hickory." 

General Powell is quite correct in say- 
ing that "the Whig Party gained little, if 
anything, by the victory of 1840. Presi- 
dent Harrison died April 4, 1841, after 
being President but one month. By his 
death the Whigs lost the substantial fruits 
of their victory. The utterly incongruous 
elements that had been held together dur- 
ing the campaign of 1840 by discontent 
and wild, unthinking enthusiasm began 
speedily to fall apart. Tyler had never 
concealed his Democratic views of govern- 
ment, and, as President, he made no pre- 
tense of carrying out Whig doctrines. 
When Congress passed a bill to establish 
a National Bank he promptly vetoed it and 
in no way exerted himself to promote 
Whig legislation. Indeed, he allied him- 
self with the Democrats so openly that he 
did not hesitate to express a desire for the 
Democratic nomination for President in 

OF 1840. 

Activity in this exciting campaign be- 
gan early. On the historic eighth of Jan- 
uary the Democrats held a largely at- 
tended, enthusiastic convention. The in- 
tensely partisan semi-weekly Indiana 
Journal called it the "Office-holders' Con- 
vention." Sneeringly the charge was set 
forth that it was composed of 209 office- 
holders, bank directors, lawyers, etc., and 
102 of other occupations, being two-thirds 
officeholders and one-third farmers and 
mechanics. Unctious emphasis was given 
by that paper to the statement that the 




Harrison convention, held on the 16th of 
January, was composed of 413 farmers 
and mechanics, and 208 officeholders, bank 
directors, lawyers, etc., making it two- 
thirds farmers and mechanics and one- 
third officeholders — just the reverse of the 
Van Buren convention. The nature of this 
criticism serves as an illustration of the 
campaign fodder which in those days was 
made to do service for the purpose of 
warping the intellect of the yeomanry. 

The general management of the Demo- 
cratic campaign had been largely intrusted 
to such stanch party men as N. B. Palmer, 
Treasurer of State; W. J. Brown, Secre- 
tary of State, and J. L. Ketcham, lawyer. 
As speakers the Democrats had on the 
stump such men as General Tilghman A. 
Howard, U. S. Senator Edward Hanne- 
gan, James Whitcomb, Marinus Willett, 
Finley Bigger, Amos Lane, Thomas Smith, 
Robert Dale Owen, John Law, Joseph A. 
Wright, John G. Davis, Paris C. Dunning, 
Delaney Eckels, Alvin P. Hovey, Andrew 
Kennedy, John Spencer, Elisha Long, Na- 
thaniel West, General Drake, John Carr, 
William W. Wick, James Brown Ray, 
Joseph Holman and Ross Smiley. 

The principal speakers on the Whig side 
were Joseph G. Marshall, 0. H. Smith, 
George Dunn, Albert S. White, William 
Herod, Caleb Smith, Richard W. Thomp- 
son, Henry S. Lane, Newton Claypool, 
Samuel C. Sample, John Liston, Thomas 
J. Evans, Schuyler Colfax, John Vawter, 
Milton Stapp, John Dumont, Jeremiah 
Sullivan, Joseph C. Eggleston, William G. 
Ewing, James H. Cravens, Jonathan Mc- 
Carty, John Ewing, George H. Dunn, 
Samuel Judah, Randall Crawford, Thomas 
H. Blake, Elisha Huntington, Judge De 
Bruler, Charles Dewey and Conrad Baker. 

In both these lists will be found the 
names of a number of gentlemen who later 
on became quite conspicuous in the coun- 
cils of the State and nation. Cabinet offi- 
cers, U. S. Senators, Governors, Con- 
gressmen and other distinguished officials 

will be found liberally represented among 
those who made the welkin ring during 
that memorable campaign. 

As stated by Historian Smith, "For 
near six weeks these men went up and 
down the State. Joint debates were the 
order of the day. Barbecues, torchlight 
parades and rallies varied the program. 
It is estimated that forty thousand people 
gathered at one time on the Tippecanoe 
battleground. The campaign closed with 
a monster parade in Indianapolis the 
night before the election. Mr. Whitcomb 
was to speak on the North Side and Sena- 
tor 0. H. Smith on the South Side. After 
waiting till midnight for the noise to sub- 
side, the two speakers left the stands." 

Throughout the campaign much viru- 
lence was injected into the discussions. 
Even a gentleman so amiable and courte- 
ous as Senator William Hendricks did not 
escape ill-natured attack. Because of his 
conciliatory course during the heated 
United States Bank controversy he was 
spoken of as "being on all sides and never 

At the August election for choosing a 
Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, the 
only State officers elected by the people 
under the old constitution, Samuel Bigger 
received 62,678 votes and Tilghman A. 
Howard, 54,083. The vote for Lieuten- 
ant-Governor stood : Samuel Hall, Whig, 
62,612; S. S. Tuley, Democrat, 53,388. 

At the presidential election in Novem- 
ber the vote of Indiana stood: William 
Henry Harrison, Whig, 65,302; Martin 
Van Buren, Democrat, 51,695; Harrison's 
majority, 13,607. 

It will be observed that the total vote 
for Governor was 116,761, while the total 
vote for President reached 116,997. .Yet 
Harrison's majority exceeded that of Big- 
ger, 5,012. So, after all, the result in In- 
diana could hardly be properly called a 


The Harrison electors for Indiana were : 
Jonathan McCarty, James H. Cravens, 

Joseph G. Marshall, Caleb B. Smith, 

John W. Payne, William Herod, 

Joseph L. White, Samuel C. Sample. 

Richard W. Thompson, 

The unsuccessful candidates for Van 
Buren electors were: 

William Hendricks, John L. Robinson, 

Geo. W. Ewing, Andrew Kennedy, 

Robert Dale Owen, W. J. Peaslee, 

Geo. Bowen, J. M. Lemon. 

Thomas J. Henley, 

David Turpie, a student of tender years 
at that time, attended the Tippecanoe 
barbecue. He says it was an immense af- 
fair. It lasted three days. He places the 
number of persons participating at 
20,000, just half of Smith's estimate. 
However, a difference in estimates of 
crowds is not usually taken seriously from 
either a mathematical or ethical point of 

Judge Turpie speaks thus of the great 
meeting: "Several stands were erected 
for speaking, printed bills gave the names 
of the speakers and announced the hour 
of meeting, and many bands of music 
played during the intervals. Eminent 
statesmen of the Whig party from differ- 
ent parts of the country spoke on this 
occasion, but the star speaker and guest 
was Mr. James Brooks of the city of New 
York. Mr. Brooks was the editor of the 
New York Evening Express, at that time 
the leading Whig newspaper in the East. 
He had been long a friend and admirer of 
Mr. Clay and had earnestly supported 
his candidacy for the Presidency; his 
presence at this great assemblage was un- 
derstood to signify that the distinguished 
Kentuckian would give his aid to the cause 
of General Harrison." 

It may be stated in this connection that 
both Henry Clay and Daniel Webster 
considered themselves more entitled to 
the Presidential nomination in 1840 than 
William Henry Harrison. Both felt that 
1840 was the psychological moment to 

vitalize a Whig nomination into a Presi- 
dential i-eality. Fate had decreed other- 
wise, as in many other cases. In po- 
litical life there are indeed many disap- 


In a neatly gotten up booklet entitled 
"The Rooster," issued by John F. Mitchell 
of the Hancock Democrat, is given a some- 
what amusing account of a visit made to 
Indiana by former President Martin Van 
Buren. As related by Mr. Mitchell, the 
ex-President made a tour of the West, in 
1843, following the route of the National 
or Cumberland road, which is the main 
thoroughfare in Greenfield. His visit to 
Greenfield was a great occasion and the 
Democrats made extensive preparations 
for his entertainment. The journey from 
the East was made by stage, and almost 
all of the stage drivers were Whigs. 

During President Van Buren's ad- 
ministration he had vetoed a bill for an 
appropriation for the improvement of 
the National road. The West was great- 
ly displeased at this action, for the road 
in many places was almost impassable. 
The stage drivers had planned to give the 
ex-President an opportunity to count the 
mud holes along the road. Near Green- 
field there was a steep hill and, at a signal, 
the driver pulled his horses to the side 
and the famous traveler was thrown into 
the mud. When Mr. Van Buren arrived 
in Greenfield he was in a deplorable con- 
dition and new clothes had to be pro- 

Later in the day a public reception was 
held in the front room of the Chapman 
tavern. Mr. Joseph Chapman took great 
pleasure in introducing his young son, 
Martin Van Buren Chapman, to the ex- 
President. This same Martin Van Buren 
Chapman later became a teacher in the 
Greenfield Academy and is responsible 
for a large portion of the early training 


of Indiana's favorite poet, Mr. James 
Whitcomb Riley, who was his pupil. 

In the same booklet is given an ex- 
tended account of the origin of the famous 
shibboleth, "Crow, Chapman, crow!" 
There lived in those days in Hancock 
county an ardent Democrat named Joseph 
Chapman. Political discussions, then 
quite frequent and spirited, were freely 
participated in by this champion of De- 
mocracy. He served as a member of the 
Legislature and was highly respected. 
During the campaign of 1840 quite a 
number of Democrats declared themselves 
for Harrison. Reports of this disaffec- 
tion reached the city of Indianapolis and 
prompted the Democratic postmaster of 
that town to write a letter of encourage- 
ment to Mr. Chapman. In this letter its 
recipient was laconically urged to "Crow, 
Chapman, crow!" — that is to say, in the 
vernacular of the day, to keep a stiif 
upper lip, or to present a bold front. This 
letter, it seems, was stolen and published 
by some unscrupulous Whig. By reason 
of the reference to numerous alleged ac- 
cessions to the camp of the Harrisonites, 
much ado was made over the affair — much 
more than its importance seems to have 
merited. The commonly accepted ver- 
sion was that Mr. Chapman had acquired 
quite a reputation as an imitator of a 
rooster crowing. This was afterward 
denied as wholly unfounded. However, 
out of the story grew the propensity for 
identifying the rooster with Democratic 
exultation. For a long time "Crow, Chap- 
man, crow!" served excellently in the 
columns of Democratic publications to 
herald something of a cheering character 
politically. At any rate, in due time the 
rooster became the Democratic emblem 
in Indiana, and is still so. 

In the days of Jackson the Democratic 
emblem was a hickory pole and broom. 
In after years a live or stuffed rooster was 
considered quite the thing in Democratic 
processions. Both emblems answered a 

purpose and afforded much delight to 
those who are fond of injecting something 
spectacular into a political campaign. 




It did not take long for a political re- 
action to set in after the landslide of 1840, 
and after the death of President Harri- 
son and the not wholly unexpected defec- 
tion of the Virginian who advanced from 
the second to the first place in the new ad- 
ministration. The nomination by the 
Whigs of John Tyler to the Vice-Presi- 
dency and his subsequent election in No- 
vember was an expediency procedure, 
prompted by a desire to bring to the Whig 
standard the various elements of opposi- 
tion to the Van Buren administration. 
Tyler was something of a free lance in 
politics, though for years closely allied 
with Henry Clay. Political shifts were 
easily made in those days, and Tyler did 
not regard himself inseparably tied to 
the party that had elevated him to the 
second highest office in the gift of the Na- 
tion. He considered himself privileged to 
follow his personal views and convictions 
rather than being obliged to adjust him- 
self to the program mapped out by the 
party leaders who had deemed it "good 
politics" to place him on their ticket and 
to clothe him with the habiliments of high 
office. When his determination to pursue 
this course became generally known the 
usual cry of "traitor" was raised in 
chagrined and distressed Whig circles 
throughout the land. Maledictions were 
hurled at him right and left. Crimina- 
tion and recrimination followed in pro- 
fusion. The more vehement the accusa- 
tions the wider the breach. Reconcilia- 
tion had been rendered impossible. 
Estrangement had become so complete as 
to have been rendered irreparable. 
Toward the last year of the Tyler ad- 
ministration flirtation with Democratic 


leaders had been so marked as to justify 
the conclusion that it amounted to an in- 
vitation to tender John Tyler the Demo- 
cratic nomination for the Presidency in 
1844. Needless to add that the hint was 
not taken. When the convention met at 
Baltimore to nominate a Presidential 
ticket a large number of Federal office- 
holders were on hand to urge his nomina- 
tion. Receiving no encouragement, they 
held a sort of rump convention of their 
own and formally nominated Tyler for 
the Presidency without naming a running 
mate. The performance was too gro- 
tesque to be seriously regarded, so some 
weeks after this nominee issued a ran- 
corous letter formally taking himself out 
of the running. 

At the State election in 1842 the lead- 
ing question before the people of Indiana 
was who should be chosen by the Legisla- 
ture to represent this commonwealth in 
the Senate of the United States. The 
Democratic favorite for this position was 
General Tilghman A. Howard, who two 
years before had met with defeat in his 
race for the Governorship. The choice 
of the Whigs was Senator Oliver H. 
Smith, who aspired to re-election. The 
race was an exceedingly close one, as al- 
ready set forth in a preceding chapter, 
and resulted in the entrance of a "dark 
horse" in the person of Edward A. Han- 
negan and his election upon the with- 
drawal of General Howard, who had 
come within two votes of the coveted 
prize, but who had become convinced that 
the cards were staked against him on ac- 
count of his refusal to promise certain 
offices to several mercenary members of 
the Legislature. 

Mr. Hannegan was a remarkably bril- 
liant man, somewhat erratic, but able, 
courageous, yea, fearless. His habits 
were decidedly convivial. He was a native 
of Ohio; attended the public schools; 
studied law ; was admitted to the bar, and 
began practice in Covington, Ind. ; served 

several terms in the Legislature; was 
elected as a Democrat to the 23rd and 24th 
Congresses (March 4, 1833, to March 4, 
1837) ; defeated for re-election, but in 
1842 elected to the United States Senate 
for a full term of six years. Toward the 
close of the Polk administration he was 
appointed Minister to Prussia, serving 
from March 22, 1849, to January 13, 
1850, when he was recalled on account of 
his temperamental incompatibility with 
diplomatic discreetness and disregard of 
diplomatic usages. Upon his return to 
Indiana he became involved in some seri- 
ous imbroglios that impelled him to move 
to St. Louis, Mo., where he died, Febru- 
ary 25, 1859. Intemperance marred an 
otherwise brilliant career. It proved to 
be an unconquerable foe. 

The plight into which the State had been 
brought by the several Whig administra- 
tions in inaugurating a stupendously im- 
practicable, ill-considered and enormous- 
ly expensive internal improvement scheme 
admonished the Democrats of Indiana to 
cast about, in 1843, for a man for Gov- 
ernor whose ability and integrity gave 
promise of bringing order out of chaos, 
restoring the commonwealth's shattered 
credit and affording relief to the sorely 
burdened taxpayers. They had selected 
such a man three years before, but the 
coon skin, log cabin and hard cider phan- 
tasy blinded the people to their real inter- 
ests and impelled them to defeat Tilgh- 
man A. Howard. The Indiana Democracy 
had within their ranks another man of 
equal sterling qualities and high attain- 
ments who could be depended on, in case 
of his election, to bring about a more 
satisfactory and assuring condition of 
affairs. The man believed to be equal to 
the emergency was James Whitcomb — 
upright citizen, rigid economist, talented 
lawyer, wise legislator, and patriotic states- 
man. His nomination at once met with 
hearty approval and with final ratification 
at the polls. 




Mr. Whitcomb was a native of Ver- 
mont, but was reared on a farm near Cin- 
cinnati. As a lad he displayed an extraor- 
dinary fondness for the study of liter- 
ature and the acquirement of knowledge. 
So persevering was he in his studies that 
he soon fitted himself for college. In due 
time he graduated from Transylvania 
University. Having qualified himself for 
the law, he was, in March, 1822, admitted 
to the Fayette county bar in Kentucky. 
Two years later he located in Blooming- 
ton, Ind., and soon won his way to a lu- 
crative practice. In 1826 he was, by Gov- 
ernor James Brown Ray, appointed Prose- 
cuting Attorney of his circuit. Recogni- 
tion of his ability led to his election to the 
State Senate in 1830, and to his re-election 
three years later. He took a conspicuous 
part in the attempt to safeguard the State 
against the internal improvement mania, 
but found himself unable to stem the tide. 
In 1836 President Jackson appointed him 
Commissioner of the General Land Office, 
which position he filled ably and accept- 
ably to the end of the Van Buren adminis- 
tration. Early in 1841 Mr. Whitcomb re- 
turned to Indiana, locating in Terre 
Haute, where he soon commanded a large 
and lucrative practice. 

His campaign for the Governorship was 
masterly and productive of splendid re- 
sults. His competitor was Governor Sam- 
uel Bigger, who three years before was 
triumphantly elected to that office. Whit- 
comb defeated Bigger by 2,069 votes. 
Jesse D. Bright was the Democratic nom- 
inee for Lieutenant-Governor and elected 
by a plurality of 4,301. 

The total vote for Governor at the 1843 
election was 121,135. Of these James 
Whitcomb had 60,787, Samuel Bigger 
58,718, Elizur Deming 1,630. 

For Lieutenant-Governor, Jesse D. 
Bright had 60,982, John H. Bradley 
56,681, Stephen S. Harding 1,687. 

There is but little doubt that the Meth- 
odist church of Indiana contributed large- 

ly to the defeat of Governor Bigger and 
the election of Mr. Whitcomb. The latter 
was for years a Methodist class-leader and 
stood deservedly high in the church. 
During the campaign the charge was made 
that in opposing some legislation which 
resulted in the establishment of Asbury 
University (now DePauw), Governor 
Bigger had said the Methodist church did 
not need an educated clergy; that an 
ignorant one was better suited to the ca- 
pacity of its membership. Bishop 
Ames, referring to this episode, said in 
1846: "It was the Amen corner of the 
Methodist church that defeated Governor 
Bigger, and I had a hand in the work." 
Bigger was for years a ruling elder in the 
Presbyterian church. He was an accom- 
plished musician and an artist in handling 
the violin. So was Governor Whitcomb. 

So acceptable was the first administra- 
tion of Governor Whitcomb that he was 
honored with a triumphant re-election in 
1846, defeating his Whig competitor, Jo- 
seph G. Marshall, by a majority of 3,958. 
And Marshall was one of the strongest and 
most popular men in the State. Paris C. 
Dunning, a most estimable and excellent 
man, was Wh'tcomb's running mate in 
this contest and triumphantly elected. 

In its issue of January 13, 1846, the 
Indimiapolis Sentinel gave the Whitcomb- 
Dunning ticket this ringing endorsement : 

"The State conventions of two great 
parties have both been held and candi- 
dates for the two principal executive 
offices have been nominated. If we may 
anticipate the end of the beginning, we 
may be sure of an easy victory. The Dem- 
ocratic convention was one of the most 
enthusiastic, the Whig convention the 
most depressed, that it has been our good 
fortune to behold. Whitcomb was nom- 
inated for re-election by acclamation with- 
out a single dissenting voice. The Whigs, 
full of doubt and fears, finally agreed to 
Mr. Marshall, because such men as 0. H. 
Smith and ex-Governor Bigger would not 
submit to the odium which the certain de- 
feat of the Whig party would have in- 


19 16 

flicted upon them. For it is the custom 
with the Whig party always to attribute 
their reverses to the unpopularity or un- 
fitness of their candidates. We well recol- 
lect the sneering cut which the Journal 
gave these leaders of its party for their 
refusal, imputing it due to selfishness and 
cowardice. But we think they only gave 
evidence of superior wisdom in thus re- 
fusing to be sacrificed. 

"The coming contest we think will be a 
cool one. The people will calmly investi- 
gate the course of Governor Whitcomb's 
administration and decide accordingly. 
It is in view of this investigation and de- 
cision that we make the positive predic- 
tion of success to our party in August. 
We know that Governor Whitcomb has 
administered our affairs as prudently, 
honestly and successfully as perhaps any 
other man in the country could have done. 
In the face of the greatest obstacles he 
has done much good, and, so far as we 
have knowledge, no harm. This is saying 
a great deal, if the weight which we in- 
tend them to imply is given to our words. 
The people never did desert a faithful 
servant and will not now. 

"Paris C. Dunning, of Monroe county, 
who was nominated as the Democratic 
candidate for Lieutenant-Governor, is a 
gentleman of much talent and energy of 
character. He did good service as a Polk 
elector during the last canvass. He is far 
the superior of Mr. Orth, the young gen- 
tleman nominated by the Whigs for the 
same office. Mr. Dunning will make him- 
self known to the people before the Au- 
gust election." 

The Sentinel had evidently read the 
signs of the times correctly. Its predic- 
tion that Whitcomb and Dunning would 
surely be triumphantly elected was veri- 
fied to the very letter by the majesty of 
the ballot. 

Quoting the language of W. W. Woollen : 
"Governor Whitcomb filled the execu- 
tive chair during an eventful period of 
the State's history. He entered the office 
with the State loaded down with debt, 
upon which no interest had been paid for 
years; he left it with the debt adjusted 
and the State's credit restored. 'He 
smote the rock of national resources, and 
abundant streams of revenue burst forth ; 

he touched the dead corpse of public 
credit, and it sprang upon its feet.' It 
was at his suggestion and on his recom- 
mendation that the Butler bill was passed, 
whereby one-half the State's debt was 
paid by a transfer of the Wabash and Erie 
canal, and the other half arranged for by 
the issuance of bonds drawing a low rate 
of interest. The settlement was alike 
satisfactory to the bondholders and the 
people, and in Governor Whitcomb's own 
words, restored 'the tarni.shed escutcheon 
of Indiana to its original brightness.' 
Had he done nothing else, he would de- 
serve the gratitude of all, but this was 
only one of the many things he did for the 
good of the people and the honor of the 
State. It was by his efforts that a public 
sentiment was created which demanded 
the establishment of our benevolent and 
reformatory institutions, and he it was 
who awakened the people of Indiana to 
the importance of establishing common 
schools and providing a fund for their 
maintenance. It was while he was Gov- 
ernor that the Mexican war broke out, and 
Indiana was called upon for soldiers to a.s- 
sist in 'conquering a peace.' Five regi- 
ments of infantrv were organized and 
mustered into the service under his di- 
rection, and the ease and rapidity with 
which it was done proved him as able in 
organization as in finance. 

"The Legislature of 1849 elected Gov- 
ernor Whitcomb to the Senate of the 
United States for the term commencing 
in March of that year. He was qualified 
by talent, by education and by experience 
for the place, and he would have added 
luster to a name already great by his serv- 
ice there had his health been good and he 
permitted to serve out his term. But dis- 
ease had fastened itself upon him, and 
therefore he was unable to discharge his 
Senatorial duties as he otherwise would 
have done. He often left the capital in 
quest of health, but he found it not. His 
disease (gravel) was painful in the ex- 
treme, but he bore it with Christian forti- 
tude. He died at New York, October 4, 
1852, away from the State whose repre- 
sentative he was. His remains were con- 
veyed to Indianapolis and buried in Green- 
lawn Cemetery, where they have mould- 
ered to dust. The State erected a monu- 
ment to his memory, and it still stands to 
point out the spot where lies all that is 



1 6 

mortal of one whose influence upon public 
sentiment is felt even at the present day." 

Shortly before James Whitcomb was 
nominated for Governor he had written a 
pamphlet in opposition to the high pro- 
tective tariff idea. Upon the publication 
and circulation thereof encomiums were 
fairly showered on its author. It was 
pronounced the ablest argument on the 
subject discussed that had yet been put 
into print. It was widely circulated. In 
1882 the Indianapolis Sentinel, by special 
request, reprinted the document, accom- 
panying it with profuse yet merited lauda- 

That there has been no overstatement in 
any of the tributes to this remarkable man 
will be made apparent by the reproduction 
of an extract from one of Thomas A. 
Hendricks' eloquent addresses, delivered 
in April, 1882, at Indianapolis : 

"Governor Whitcomb was a great 
scholar. He was capable not only of 
acquiring but of using the accumulations 
of learning. With him learning became 
an influence, an instrumentality, a power. 
His tastes were cultivated. He com- 
manded beautiful and strong language, 
and in it he clothed his thoughts, that 
were always appropriate to the subject 
and the occasion. I heard him address 
the people in his first candidacy for Gov- 
ernor. It was the greatest political speech 
I have ever heard. There was not in it a 
vulgarism or an appeal to low sentiment. 
He addressed reason, emotion, sympathy. 
The multitude stood enraptured. As men 
went from the place of meeting they fell 
into grave and serious conversation about 

what they had heard, and the impression 
remained. From that day he was a lead- 
er, but not as men commonly speak of 
leadership; he maneuvered for no combi- 
nations ; he was a leader in a higher sense. 
He declared what he believed to be the 
truth and trusted to its influence upon 
men's minds to bring them into common 
action. He led legislators because it was 
safest for them to follow. His manner 
was grave and serious, his voice was full 
and musical and his delivery almost with- 
out gesture. I never heard him in court, 
but am sure he was a formidable antago- 
nist before either court or jury." 

Mr. Woollen is authority for the state- 
ment that "Governor Whitcomb was an 
active Freemason. He was the first man 
knighted in Indiana, the honor being con- 
ferred upon him May 20, 1848. Raper 
Commandery was organized in his house, 
and for some time held its meetings there. 
He was proud of his connections with 
Masonry; in his aflFections Masonry stood 
only second to his church." 

During the third year of his occupancy 
of the gubernatorial chair, March 24, 

1846, Mr. Whitcomb was married to Mrs. 
Martha Ann Hurst. She died July 17, 

1847, shortly after giving birth to a 
daughter, who in later years became the 
wife of Claude Matthews, Secretary of 
State from 1891 to 1893, and Governor of 
Indiana from 1893 to 1897. Governor 
Whitcomb recorded his adored wife's 
death in the family Bible, following the 
record with these much-meaning words: 
"How brief our happy sojourn together." 

[Chapter VII.] 



HE victory won in 1843 under 

' I ^ ly the leadership of Whitcomb and 
I I Dunning had an inspiring effect 
X ill on the Indiana Democracy. It 
awakened confidence in their 
ability to carry the State for 
Polk and Dallas at the Novem- 
ber election, and to aid to the extent of 
twelve electoral votes in again placing the 
country under Democratic control. As- 
sembling in convention at Indianapolis in 
the month of June, they selected an elec- 
toral ticket composed of some of the best 
and most prominent Democrats in the 
State. For electors at large they those Dr. 
Graham N. Fitch, of Logansport, and 
James G. Read, of Jeffersonville. For Dis- 
trict Electors they named: 


1. William A. Bowles, Orange county. 

2. Elijah Newland, Washington. 

3. John M. Johnson, Franklin. 

4. Samuel E. Perkins, Wayne. 

5. William W. Wick, Marion. 

6. Paris C. Dunning, Monroe. 

7. Austin M. Puett, Parke. 

8. Henry W. Ellsworth, Tippecanoe. 

9. Charles W. Cathcart, Laporte. 
10. Lucien P. Ferry, Allen. 


Livingston Dunlap, 
Horatio J. Harris, 
J. P. Chapman, 
A. F. Morrison, 
Thomas Johnson, 
Elias N. Skinner, 
Samuel P. Daniels, 
Abram Koontz, 

James P. Drake, 
Nathan B. Palmei 
Charles Parry, 
Capt. John Cain, 
E. Hedderly, 
Nathaniel West, 
Julius Nocolai. 

A ringing declaration of "Democratic 
Principles and Measures" was promul- 
gated in this form: 

A simple and frugal Government con- 
fined within strict constitutional limits. 

A strict construction of the Constitu- 
tion and no assumption of doubtful pow- 

No national bank to swindle the labor- 
ing population. 

No connection between the Government 
and banks. 

A diplomacy asking for nothing but 
what is clearly right and submitting to 
nothing wrong. 

No public debt either by the general 
Government or by the States, except for 
objects of urgent necessity. 

No assumption by the general Govern- 
ment of the debts of the States, either di- 
rectly or indirectly, by the distribution of 
the proceeds of the public lands. 

A revenue tariff discriminating in favor 
of the poor consumer instead of the rich 

No extensive system of internal im- 
provement by the general Government or 
by the States. 

A Constitutional barrier against im- 
provident State loans. 

The honest payment of our debts and 
the sacred preservation of the public 

A gradual return from the paper credit 

No grants of exclusive charters and 
privileges by special legislation to banks. 

No connection between church and 

No proscription for honest opinions. 

Fostering aid to public education. 

A "progressive" reformation of all 

In Indiana, as in other States, the cam- 
paign of 1844 became one of intense bit- 
terness. A good deal of personal abuse 
was injected into it. The apostacy of 
Tyler had greatly embittered the Whigs. 
Even the death of President Harrison, 
officially declared to have been due to an 
attack of bilious pleurisy, but by others 
asserted to have been brought about by ex- 


19 1 

haustive worry over the intense pressure 
for recognition by importunate office- 
seekers, constituted no insignificant part 
of the campaign. Democrats, though 
tacitly approving the attitude of Tyler on 
the "burning issues" of the day, did not 
deem it incumbent on themselves to 
champion or applaud the course of that 
public functionary. When the Whigs, in 
their rage, denounced Tyler as "the cor- 
rupt, foresworn, perfidious, mocking 
image of executive rule at Washington," 
Democrats were content with the re- 
joinder that Tyler was placed in power by 
the Whigs and that the Democrats were 
in no sense responsible for his official 
creation. This was considered a "knock- 
down argument" that afforded no comfort 
to the Whigs. A new political epithet was 
introduced. It had originated in New 
York, where a factional Democratic meet- 
ing terminated in a row and a rumpus be- 
tween "Equal Rights men" and the 
"Hunkers." During the fracas the gas 
was turned out by connivance. The Equal 
Rights men were so determined to con- 
tinue the meeting that they lit what were 
then called loco foco matches and con- 
tinued the proceedings with that sort of 
scant illumination. The novelty of the 
thing was so engaging that it received 
widespread publicity, and in due course 
of time the term Loco Foco was applied to 
Democrats in general. As a political 
nickname it did service up to 1858. It 
was no longer heard of after that. 

The Democratic speakers in Indiana 
made eff'ective use of both State and na- 
tional issues. They presented strong 
arguments. Responsive audiences in- 
spired the campaign managers with high 
confidence in the outcome. And they were 
not disappointed. A count of the votes 
cast at the November election showed this 
result : 

James K. Polk, Democrat 70,181 

Henry Clay, Whig 67,867 

James G. Birney, Abolitionist. . 2,106 

What pleased the Democrats particu- 
larly was that Polk carried the State by 
a majority over both the Whig and the 
Abolitionist candidates. There was no 
sort of indebtedness due the third party 
for "favors rendered" in running a candi- 
date of their own. 

The situation was quite diff'erent in 
some of the Eastern States, as will appear 
from the following extracts from A. K. 
McClure's book entitled "Our Presidents": 

"Mr. Clay enjoyed a much larger meas- 
ure of personal popularity than any other 
man in the Nation, and he was universal- 
ly accepted as the most gifted political 
orator of his day. He was to the Whigs 
of that time what Blaine was to the Re- 
publicans during his several unsuccessful 
battles for the Presidency. It is a notable 
fact in political history that no pre-em- 
inent political orator ever succeeded in 
reaching the Presidency. Garfield was 
the nearest approach to it, but he was a 
contemporary of Blaine, and Blaine far 
outstripped him either on the hustings or 
in parliamentary debate. Clay had en- 
tered both the House and Senate when lit- 
tle more than eligible by age, and he was 
admittedly the most accomplished presid- 
ing officer the House ever had. He was 
the Commoner of the war of 1812, and 
rendered most conspicuous service to his 
country. His speeches in the House did 
more than the persuasion of any other 
dozen men to force the young Republic 
into a second contest with England on the 
right of search on the high seas. He was 
always strong in argument, was often im- 
passioned and superbly eloquent, and in 
every great emergency of the country dur- 
ing the first half of the present century 
he was the pacificator. President Madi- 
son was most reluctant to declare war 
against England, and he yielded to it only 
when it became a supreme necessity to 
obey the general demand of the country 
for an appeal to arms. 

"When Clay was nominated for Presi- 
dent in 1844, it was generally believed 
that he would have an easy victory over 
Van Buren, and when Polk, of Tennessee, 
was made the compromise candidate 
against him, the Whigs at first believed 
that the nomination of a comparatively 
obscure man against the great chieftain 



of the Whigs would give them a walkover. 
The campaign had made little progress, 
however, until the Whigs discovered that 
the Democrats were going to "be thorough- 
ly united on Polk, and that he was prob- 
ably the strongest candidate who could 
have been nominated against Clay. His 
chief strength was in his negative qual- 
ities. He had not been involved in any of 
the conflicts of ambition among the Demo- 
cratic leaders. He was regarded as the 
favorite of Jackson, and while his nom- 
ination had been made without any previ- 
ous discussion or suggestion of his claims 
to the Presidency, he had filled high State 
and national positions with credit, and he 
could not be accused of incompetency. I 
doubt indeed whether any other Democrat 
could have been nominated by the Demo- 
cratic convention to make a successful 
battle against Clay. 

"The Whigs entered the contest defiant 
in confidence and enthusiastic to a degree 
that had never before been exhibited in 
the support of any candidate. The devo- 
tion of the Whigs to Clay was little less 
than idolatry, and strong men shed scald- 
ing tears over his defeat. He was largely 
handicapped in his battle by the compli- 
cations put upon the Whig party by Presi- 
dent Tyler. The Cabinet was wholly 
Democratic and bitterly against Clay. 
Under the demoralization caused by 
Tyler's betrayal of the party the Whigs 
had lost the House in 1842, but they re- 
tained their mastery in the Senate, and a 
new peril to Clay was soon developed in 
the growth of the Abolition sentiment of 
western New York. Neither Clay nor 
Polk made campaign speeches, and both 
maintained themselves with scrupulous 
dignity throughout the long and excep- 
tionally desperate contest. 

"Pennsylvania was then, as in 1860, the 
pivotal State of the struggle, and the 
death of the Democratic candidate for 
Governor during the midsummer deprived 
the Whigs of a source of strength that 
most likely would have given them the 
State in October. The Democrats had a 
violent factional dispute in choosing a 
candidate for Governor. Mr. Muhlenberg, 
who had been a bolting candidate against 
Governor Wolfe in 1835, thereby electing 
Ritner, the anti-Masonic candidate, was 
finally nominated for Governor over 
Francis R. Shunk, the candidate of the 

opposing faction. Muhlenberg was weak- 
ened by his aggressive factional record, 
and the Democrats were hardly hopeful 
of his election, but he died just when the 
struggle was at its zenith, and Shunk was 
then unanimously and cordially accepted 
as the Democratic leader. 

"The Whigs had nominated General 
Markle of Westmoreland, who was unques- 
tionably the strongest man they could 
have presented. The Presidential battle 
was practically fought in that contest for 
Governor, and when Shunk was elected by 
4,397 majority there were few who cher- 
ished much hope of Clay's election. Penn- 
sylvania, lost in October, could not be re- 
gained in November, but the Whigs did 
not in anv measure relax their eff'orts, and 
Polk carried the State over Clay by 6,332. 

"When Pennsylvania faltered the greatly 
impaired hopes of the Whigs centered in 
New York, as it was believed that New 
York might decide the contest in favor of 
Clay, even with Pennsylvania certain to 
vote against him. The nomination of Silas 
Wright for Governor had thoroughly 
united the Van Buren followers in support 
of Polk, and while Clay .stood against the 
annexation of Te.xas and the extension of 
the slave power, the. anti-slavery senti- 
ment of New York was greatly strength- 
ened by the fact that both Clay and 
Polk were Southerners and slaveholders. 
Birney. the Abolition candidate, received 
15,812 votes, while Polk's majority in the 
State was 5,106. Mr. Greeley, who was 
one of the leaders in the anti-.slavery move- 
ment, and much more practical than the 
organized Abolitioni.sts, bitterly denounced 
that party for defeating Clay. In his Whig 
Almanac for 1845 he had an elaborate re- 
view of the contest, in which he said: 

The year 1844 just ended has witnessed one of 
the most extraordinary political contests that has 
ever occurred. So nice and equal a balance of 
parties; so universal and intense an interest; so 
desperate and protracted a strupfjle, are entirely 
without parallel. . . . James K. Polk owes 
his election to the Birney or Liberty party. Had 
there been no such party, drawing its votes nine- 
tenths from the Whig ranks, Mr. Clay would have 
received at least the votes of New York and Mich- 
igan, in addition to those actually cast for him, 
givins: him 14(i electoral votes to Polk's 129. To 
Birney & Co., therefore, is the country indebted 
for the election of Polk and the annexation and 
anti-tariff ascendency in the Federal Government. 

The number of States voting was 
twenty-six, the same as in 1840. The new 



- 1 

Congressional apportionment had reduced 
the Representatives from 242 to 223, 
making the total number of electors 275. 
The popular vote in all the States ex- 
cept South Carolina (which for many 
years chose its electors by the Legislature) 
was as follows: 

James K. Polk, Democrat. .1,337,243 

Henry Clay, Whig 1,299,068 

Jas. G. Birney, Abolitionist 65,608 

Of the electoral vote, Polk had 170, Clay 

In further explanation of the outcome 
of the campaign, Col. McClure says : 

"The Whigs, in keen despair over the 
defeat of their ablest and most beloved 
champion, charged fraud as the controlling 
factor in giving the Democrats their vic- 
tory, but the battle had been fought and 
lost, and there was nothing left for them 
but submission. The electoral count was 
uneventful, and Polk and Dallas were form- 
ally declared elected President and Vice- 
President without objection. 

"The most desperate contests outside of 
New York and Pennsylvania were made 
in Tennessee and Delaware. Tennessee 
was the home of Polk, and the "Old Hero 
of New Orleans" threw himself into the 
contest for Polk with tireless energy. He 
inspired his veteran followers not only be- 
cause he wanted Polk elected, but because 
he much more wanted Clay defeated. Clay 
had defeated him for President in the 
House in 1825, and Jackson never forgot 
a friend and rarely forgave an enemy. It 
v/as many days after the election before 
the vote of Tennessee could be ascertained, 
and it was claimed by both parties until 
the official vote was declared. It was 
finally announced that Clay had carried 
the State by 1 13, and the success of Clay 
in that State was the only silver lining the 
Whigs had to the dark cloud of their de- 

"Another memorable battle, though not 
in any sense an important contest as af- 
fecting the result, was fought in Delaware. 
The States did not then vote for President 
on the same day as now. All of them voted 
for Presidential electors in the month of 
November, although at that time nearly all 
the States elected their State officers and 
Congressmen earlier in the year. Dela- 

ware, with only three electoral votes, held 
both her State and Presidential elections 
on the second Tuesday of November, and 
when her election day came around it was 
known to all that Clay was absolutely de- 
feated for President. 

"New York and Pennsylvania had voted 
for Polk a week before, and on the second 
Tuesday of November only Massachusetts 
and Delaware were left among the States 
that had not chosen electors. Massachu- 
setts was Whig and hardly contested, but 
Delaware made a most heroic battle for 
Clay, even when it was known that a vic- 
tory in the little Diamond State could not 
aid the election of their favorite. The 
Democrats, inspired by their positively 
assured success in the national contest, 
exhausted their resources and efforts to 
win, but in the largest vote ever cast in 
the State, Clay won by 287 majority, re- 
ceiving a larger vote than was cast for the 
Whig candidates for Governor or for Con- 
gress, both of whom were successful, the 
first by 45 majority and the last by 173." 

In remembrance of the log cabin, hard 
cider and coon skin campaign of 1840, the 
Democratic national platform adopted at 
Baltimore, in May, 1844, started out with 
this stinging declaration: 

"Resolved, That the American Democ- 
racy place their trust, not in factitious 
symbols, not in displays and appeals in- 
sulting to the judgment and subversive 
of the intellect of the people, but in a clear 
reliance upon the intelligence, patriotism, 
and the discriminating justice of the 
American people." 

The 1844 platform consisted of fifteen 
planks, nine of which were bodily taken 
from the Van Buren platform of 1840. It 
is worthy of note that the latter docu- 
ment was preceded by this declaration : 

"Resolved, That the convention deems 
it expedient, at the present time, not to 
choose between the individuals in nomina- 
tion, but to leave the decision to their Re- 
publican fellow-citizens in the several 
States, trusting that before the election 
shall take place their opinion will become 
so concentrated as to secure the choice of 
a Vice-President by the Electoral College." 



Using the term "Republican" even dur- 
ing the Jacksonian era of the Democratic 
party serves as an indication of the 
tenacity with which members of the organ- 
ization adhered to that pai'ty appellation. 
In the National Convention of 1848 that 
nominated Cass and Butler, the noted 
Arkansas fire-eater, William L. Yancey, 
persisted in using the term "Republican" 
instead of Democrat. 


In the "good old days" there turned up 
occasionally an individual pre-eminent for 
devotion to party, self-sacrificing in spirit 
and action, and charmingly free from 
sordidness. Within this category comes 
James G. Read, who represented the coun- 
ties of Daviess and Martin in the House 
of Representatives five years successively, 
the county of Clark two years, then served 
nine years in the Senate. While a State 
Senator he was twice made President of 
the Senate, or acting Lieutenant-Governor. 
Prior to that he was twice the Democratic 
nominee for Governor, first in 1831, then 
in 1834, and defeated both times. In addi- 
tion to all this, he officiated several times 
as President of State and district conven- 
tions and as candidate for presidential 
elector. The compensation for service in 
the State Legislature was meager, barely 
enough to defray expenses at the Capital. 
Making two unsuccessful races for the 
Governorship must have entailed more ex- 
pense. Mr. Read is entitled to honorable 
mention in the first and only history of 
the Indiana Democracy. 

For years a Democratic gathering in 
Indiana seemed incomplete without the 
presence of Robert Dale Owen. He was a 
much greater man than his fellow-citizens 
seemed to realize. That, however, is not 
unusual in many parts of the world, In- 
diana not excepted. 

Mr. Owen was born in Glasgow, Scot- 
land, November 9, 1801. In his native 

land he pursued classical studies; came to 
the United States with his parents in 1832, 
and located in New Harmony, and aided in 
the establishment of a social community. 
He was editor of the Free Euqnirer, 
published in New York 1828-1831. The 
.year following he returned to New Har- 
mony, and three years later he was elected 
a member of the Legislature and re-elected 
two or three times in succession. Recog- 
nition and appreciation of his eminent 
abilities led to his election to Congress for 
two terms, from 1843 to 1847. Amidst one 
of those strange political upheavals, the 
cause of which few can fathom, Mr. Owen 
was defeated in his third congressional 
race. He served with distinction as a 
member of the Constitutional Convention 
of 1850. From 1853 to 1858 he repre- 
sented the United States in a diplomatic 
capacity. He died at Lake George, N. Y., 
June 25, 1877. 

Mr. Owen, richly endowed with a 
philosophical mind, was a public speaker 
who never failed to interest his audiences. 
He was a thorough believer in the political 
philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and 
never tired of expatiating on the sublime 
teachings of the author of the imperish- 
able Declaration of Independence. For 
this devotion to genuine democracy, Mr. 
Owen was fiercely and not infrequently 
coarsely assailed by the Indianapolis 
Journal and kindred unscrupulous partisan 
publications. Denunciation fell upon his 
head for proclaiming on all suitable occa- 
sions undying faith in these Jeffersonian 
Doctrines : 

"Honesty is the first chapter of the book 
of wisdom." 

"I have never believed there was one 
code of morality for a public and another 
for a pi-ivate man." 

"To inform the minds of the people and 
to follow their will is the chief duty of 
those placed at their head." 

"The information of the people at large 
can alone make them the safe, as they are 
the sole, depository of our religious and 
political freedom." 



"There is a debt of service due from 
every man to his country, proportioned to 
the bounties which nature and fortune 
have measured to him." 

"It is impossible not to be sensible that 
we are acting for all mankind; that cir- 
cumstances denied to others, but indulged 
to us, have imposed on us the duty of 
proving what is the degree of freedom and 
self-government in which a society may 
venture to have its individual members." 

"The station which we occupy among 
the nations of the earth is honorable, but 
awful. Trusted with the destinies of this 
solitary republic of the world, the only 
monument of human rights and the sole 
depository of the sacred fire of freedom 
and self-government, from hence it is to 
be lighted up in other regions of the earth, 
if other regions of the earth ever become 
susceptible of its benign influence. All 
mankind ought then, with us, to rejoice 
in its prosperous and sympathize in its 
adverse fortunes, as involving everything 
that is dear to man. And to what sacri- 
fices of interest or commerce ought not 
these considerations to animate us? To 
what compromises of opinion and inclina- 
tion, to maintain harmony and union 
among ourselves, and to preserve from all 
danger this hallowed ark of human hope 
and human happiness. That diff'erences 
of opinion should arise among men, on 
politics, on religion, and on every other 
topic of human inquiry, and that these 
should be freely expressed in a country 
where all our faculties are free, is to be 

Faith in Jeffersonian doctrines is 
strengthened in turning to his first inau- 
gural address and cogitating over these 
lofty sentiments: 

"I know, indeed, that some honest men 
fear that a Republican Government can- 
not be strong; that this Government is 
not strong enough. But would the honest 
patriot, in the full tide of successful ex- 

periment, abandon a Government which 
has so far kept us free and firm, on the 
theoretic and visionary fear that this 
Government, the world's best hope, may 
by possibility want energy to preserve it- 
self? I trust not. I believe this, on the 
contrary, the strongest Government on 
earth. I believe it the only one where 
every man. at the call of the laws, would 
fly to the standard of the law, and would 
meet invasions of the public order, as his 
own personal concern. 

"Let us, then, with courage and confi- 
dence, pursue our own Federal and Re- 
publican principles, our attachment to our 
Union and representative Government. 
Kindly separated by nature and a wide 
ocean from the exterminating havoc of one 
quarter of the globe; too high-minded to 
endure the degradations of the others; 
possessing a chosen country, with room 
enough for our descendants to the hun- 
dredth and thousandth generation ; enter- 
taining a due sense of our equal rights to 
the use of our own faculties, to the acquisi- 
tions of our industry, to honor and con- 
fidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting, 
not from birth, but from our actions and 
their sense of them; enlightened by a 
benign religion, professed, indeed, and 
practiced in various forms, yet all of them 
including honesty, truth, temperance, 
gratitude, and the love of man ; acknowl- 
edging and adoring an overruling Provi- 
dence, which by all its dispensations proves 
that it delights in the happiness of man 
here and his greater happiness hereafter; 
with all these blessings, what more is 
necessary to make us a happy and pros- 
perous people? Still one thing more, fel- 
low-citizens — a wise and frugal Govern- 
ment, which shall restrain men from in- 
juring one another, which shall leave them 
otherwise free to regulate their own pur- 
suits of industry and improvement, and 
shall not take from the mouth of labor 
the bread it has earned. This is the sum 
of good government, and this is necessary 
to close the circle of our felicities." 

[Chapter VIII.] 


FROM 1833 ro 1841 

P TO 1833, as set forth in pre- 
ceding chapters, Indiana was 
represented in the lower House 
of Congress by three members. 
Under the census of 1830 a new 
apportionment was made. In- 
diana had grown wonderfully. 
Her population in a single decade had more 
than doubled. In 1820 it was 147,178; in 
1830 it had risen to 343,031 — an increase 
of 195,853, or 133.1 per cent. This entitled 
Indiana to seven seats in the House of 
Representatives at Washington. No em- 
barrassment was occasioned the electorate 
of Indiana by this demand upon its con- 
gressional timber. It had an abundance 
thereof, even in those days, and could 
easily have furnished a much larger 
supply. Men of statesmanlike qualities 
had flocked into the young commonwealth 
from East and South, and were still 
coming with the influx of new population. 
To the Twenty-third Congress (1833 to 
1835) Indiana sent this array of talent: 

1. Ratliff Boon. 

2. John Ewing. 

3. John Carr. 

4. Amos Lane. 

5. Jonathan McCarty. 

6. George S. Kinnard. 

7. Edward A. Hannegan. 

Boon, Carr and Hannegan have already 
had mention. John Ewing was born at 
sea, while his parents were on their way 
from Cork to Baltimore. The family 
located in Indiana. Young Ewing was edu- 
cated in the public schools; established a 
Whig paper at Wabash, called the Tran- 
script: engaged in mercantile pursuits at 
Vincennes; served several terms in both 
branches of the Legislature; was first 
elected to Congress by a majority of two 

over Dr. -John W. Davis, who in turn de- 
feated him two years later by about 1,000; 
was thereafter again elected to Congress, 
serving from 1837 to 1839. He died at 
Vincennes, April 6, 1858, highly esteemed 
by all the people, regardless of their 
political affiliation. 

Amos Lane was born near Aurora, N. 
Y., March 1, 1778; educated in the public 
schools; practiced law at Lawrenceburg; 
served as Speaker of the House of Rep- 
resentatives ; twice elected to Congress as 
a Democrat and defeated as a candidate 
for a third term. 

Jonathan McCarty was a native of Ten- 
nessee; educated in the public schools; 
located in Franklin county; served in the 
State Legislature; removed to Conners- 
ville, Fayette county ; held several county 
offices; served two terms in Congress as 
a Whig; defeated for a third term; was 
a Harrison elector in 1840. Died in 
Keokuk, Iowa, in 1855. 

George S. Kinnard was born in Pennsyl- 
vania, 1803; was by his widowed mother 
taken to Tennessee, where he completed 
his preparatory studies ; located in Indian- 
apolis; held several local offices; studied 
law and was admitted to the bar; served 
in the Legislature and was by it elected 
to the office of State Auditor; was made 
colonel of State militia; twice elected as 
a Democrat to Congress, and served from 
March 4, 1833, until his death from in- 
juries received in the explosion on the 
steamer "Flora." on the Ohio River, No- 
vember 25. 1836. William Herod, a Whig, 
was chosen to fill the unexpired term. 

In the Twenty-fourth Congress (1835 
to 1837) these gentlemen represented 



1. Ratliff Boon. 

2. John W. Davis. 

3. John Carr. 

4. Amos Lane. 

5. Jonathan McCarty. 

6. George S. Kinnard (died). 

6. William Herod (to fill vacancy). 

7. Edvifard A. Hannegan. 

John Wesley Davis was born in New 
Holland, Lancaster county, Pa., April 16, 
1799 ; graduated from the Baltimore Medi- 
cal College in 1821 ; moved to Carlisle, Sul- 
livan county, Ind., in 1823; member of the 
Legislature for several terms; served as 
Speaker of the House in 1832; appointed 
commissioner to negotiate an Indian 
treaty in 1834; elected as a Democrat to 
Congress from 1835 to 1837 and defeated 
for re-election by two votes ; thereafter re- 
turned to Congress from 1839 to 1841; 
given a rest by the Harrison tidal wave, 
but triumphantly elected and re-elected 
from 1843 to 1847; made Speaker of the 
National House December, 1845. Upon 
the conclusion of his congressional serv- 
ice he was again sent to the State Legis- 
lature and chosen Speaker of the House, 
having in caucus defeated William H. 
English, who at that time began his politi- 
cal career. President Polk appointed Dr. 
Davis as minister to China, in which capac- 
ity he served from January 3, 1848, to 
May 25, 1850. Having several times rep- 
resented Indiana in Democratic national 
conventions and achieved a national repu- 
tation, he was chosen president of the 
Baltimore convention that nominated 
Franklin Pierce for the Presidency in 1852. 
President Pierce appointed Dr. Davis as 
Governor of Oregon. The appointment 
was at first declined, but finally accepted. 
The office evidently was not to his liking. 
Holding it a year, he resigned and returned 
to his beloved Indiana. In 1856 he was 
again elected to the State Legislature by 
what he appreciatively characterized as 
"the most flattering vote I ever received 
from the good people of Sullivan county, 
among whom I have resided for more 
than thirty-five years." 

The last oflice to which Mr. Davis was 
assigned was that of visitor to West Point 
Military Academy, of which he was made 
president. He lived until August 22, 1859, 
when he died at his cherished home in 
Carlisle. With his demise terminated the 
career of one of Indiana's most remark- 
able and distinguished men. He was a 
forceful speaker, a clear thinker, a genial 
gentleman, a thoroughly honest man, a 
true lover of his country, and in sunshine 
or gloom ever an ardent but always a con- 
scientious Democrat. 

William Herod began the practice of law 
at Columbus, Ind., served as member of 
the State Senate, and was elected to Con- 
gress to fill the unexpired term of George 
S. Kinnard. Herod was re-elected to the 
Twenty-fifth Congress by an overwhelm- 
ing majority over former Governor James 
Brown Ray. In his next race for re-elec- 
tion Herod was defeated by William W. 
Wick, Democrat. 

In the Twenty-fifth Congress (1837 to 
1839) these gentlemen served their con- 
stituents : 

1. Ratliff Boon. 

2. John Ewing. 

3. William Graham. 

4. George H. Dunn. 

5. James H. Rariden. 

6. William Herod. 

7. Albert S. White. 

William Graham was a Kentuckian; be- 
came an inhabitant of Indiana Territory 
in 1811, settling at Vallonia; there prac- 
ticed law ; member of the Territorial Legis- 
lature in 1812; member of the first Gen- 
eral Assembly; delegate to the State con- 
stitutional convention of 1816; Speaker of 
the House of Representatives in 1820; 
member of the State Senate; elected as a 
Whig to the Congress of 1837 to 1839. 
Died near Vallonia, August 17, 1858. 

George Hebford Dunn resided at Law- 
rencehurg; served three terms in the Leg- 
islature; Treasurer of State from 1841 
to 1843; defeated as the Whig candidate 
for Congress in 1835; had better luck next 



18 16-1 

time, but was again defeated in third race. 
Was a man of superior ability. Died at 
Lawrenceburg January 12, 1854. 

James Rariden was a native of Ken- 
tucky ; practiced law at Centerville, Wayne 
county; served in both branches of the 
State Legislature; delegate to the State 
constitutional convention; twice elected to 
Congress as a Whig. Died in Cambridge 

As members of the Twenty-sixth Con- 
gress (1889 to 1841) these gentlemen were 
chosen to serve their constituents: 

1. George H. Proffit. 

2. John W. Davis. 

3. John Carr. 

4. Thomas Smith. 

5. James H. Rariden. 

6. William W. Wick. 

7. Tilghman A. Howard. 

George H. ProfRt was a native of New 
Orleans, La. After establishing himself 
in Indiana he was four times elected to 
the Legislature. Twice elected to Con- 
gress as a Whig. Appointed by President 
Tyler as minister to Brazil; the Senate 
having refused to confirm the appoint- 
ment, he returned to the United States 
after serving one year and two months. 
Died in Louisville, Ky., September 5, 1847. 

Thomas Smith was a native of Pennsyl- 
vania; moved to Indiana and engaged in 
tanning at Versailles, Ripley county; 
served so acceptably as a representative 
and State Senator that he was four times 
nominated by the Democrats for Congress, 
triumphantly elected three times and de- 
feated in his second race. While a mem- 
ber of the Legislature he vigorously 
opposed the wild schemes of internal im- 
provement which bankrupted the State 
and brought financial dishonor upon her 
name. His course upon this subject 
added to his popularity at home and was 
the immediate cause of his subsequent 
political advancement. As a member of 
the constitutional convention he protested 
earnestly and eloquently against a 
proposed clause discriminating against 

negroes. His sense of justice would not 
permit him to countenance injustice. He 
was singularly free of narrowness and 
prejudice. His manner as a debater was 
plain, straightforward, emphatic, impres- 
sive. As a Jeffersonian he held very pro- 
nounced views on the .slavery question. 
He recognized it as an institution older 
than the Union itself, but nevertheless he 
could never persuade himself that it was 
other than an evil. Holding these views, 
he deplored the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise. Unwilling to subscribe to 
doctrines that his conscience could not 
approve, he regretfully severed his affilia- 
tion with the party that had sent him 
three times to Congress, and in course of 
time identified himself with anti-slavery 
organizations. He died at Versailles April 
12, 1876. 

An exceedingly interesting character 
was William Watson Wick. He was born 
in Cannonsburg, Pa., February 23, 1796, 
taught school, studied medicine, and then 
law. Upon his admission to the bar he 
began practice at Connersville, Ind., in 
1820. By the Legislature he was elected 
Secretary of State in 1825; State at- 
torney for the fifth judicial circuit, 
1829-1831; president judge, 1831-1835. 
Was three times elected to Congress 
and defeated in his second race. In 
recognition of his services to the 
Democi'atic party he was made postmaster 
of Indianapolis under the Pierce adminis- 
tration, serving from 1853 until 1857. 
Originally he was a Whig. Like a good 
many other Indianians of that period he 
had no hesitancy about changing party 
affiliations when he could no longer approve 
its policies. He quit the further study 
of medicine because he did not care to 
be contemplating men's miseries. Hold- 
ing public positions with meager salary 
attachments kept him poor. His worldly 
possessions rarely reached a thousand dol- 
lars, all told. Like many other public men 
of his day, he was convivially inclined. 



Poor in purse, he was quite desirous of 
retaining the Indianapolis postoffice. He 
had gotten along in years and understood 
full well that resuming the practice of law, 
after having been out for so long a time, 
would afford but poor picking. He was 
sorely grieved that he should be turned 
out of office. But he realized that he had 
taken a firm stand on the slavery question, 
and that he had committed himself un- 
equivocally against the attempt to foist 
slavery upon Kansas. In letters to Indiana 
members of Congress he entreated them 
to resist further encroachments by the 
slave power. This made him a political 
heretic in the eyes of Senator Jesse D. 
Bright, who had the ear of President 
Buchanan. At the expiration of his four- 
year term, William Watson Wick had to 
step down and out and turn the manage- 
ment of the Indianapolis postoffice over to 
John M. Talbott. It was, under the cir- 
cumstances, a severe blow to Mr. Wick, 
but he neither raved nor moaned. He was 
accustomed to adversity; he never gave 
much thought to tomorrow. His father, 
a Presbyterian minister, intended his 
William Watson to qualify himself for the 
ministry, but the young man could not 
reconcile himself to that calling ; there was 
too much of the wag in him for such 
sedateness. Referring to the fact that 
his father was a preacher and his uncle a 
merchant, Judge Wick once dryly re- 
marked: "One chose piety and poverty, 
the other merchandising and money-get- 
ting, and they both succeeded. One laid 
up treasures in heaven, the other on earth, 
and verily they both had their reward." 

When the campaign of 1860 came on 
Judge Wick took the stump for Stephen A. 
Douglas, earnestly and eloquently pleading 
the cause of popular sovereignty and vig- 
orously denouncing the unreasonableness 
of the proslavery element that was sup- 
porting Breckinridge and Lane. Shortly 
after the defeat of Douglas, Judge Wick 
left Indianapolis to take up his abode with 
his daughter, Mrs. William H. Overstreet, 

at Franklin, Ind. He died at her home 
May 19, 1869, and was buried in the 
Franklin cemetery. 

In the Twenty-seventh Congress (1841 
to 1843) Indiana was represented by this 
exceptionally able delegation: 

1. George H. Proffit. 

2. Richard W. Thompson. 

3. Joseph L. White. 

4. James H. Cravens. 

5. Andrew Kennedy. 

6. David Wallace. 

7. Henry S. Lane. 

Among these exceptionally able men was 
Richard Wigginton Thompson, the greater 
part of his life a resident of Terre Haute. 
He was popularly known as "Silver- 
tongued Dick Thompson," and in later 
years acquired distinction in the literary 
world. The "History of Protective Tariff 
Laws," issued in 1888, may be said to con- 
stitute his most important work in this 
line. He was born in Culpeper county, Va., 
June 9, 1809; pursued classical studies; 
moved to Louisville, Ky., in 1831 ; clerk in 
a store; moved to Lawrence county, Ind.; 
taught school; studied law, was admitted 
to the bar in 1834, and began practice in 
Bedford, Ind. ; member of the State House 
of Representatives 1834-1836; served in 
State Senate 1836-1838 and served for a 
short time as president pro tempore; 
elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh 
Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843) ; 
unsuccessful candidate for re-election; 
presidential elector in 1840 on the Harri- 
son and Tyler ticket ; re-elected as a Whig 
to the Thirtieth Congress (March 4, 1847- 
March 3, 1849) ; declined a renomination ; 
declined the office of Austrian minister, 
tendered him by President Taylor, the of- 
fice of Recorder of the General Land Office, 
tendered by President Fillmore, and a seat 
on the bench of the Court of Claims, ten- 
dered by President Lincoln; presidential 
elector on the Lincoln and Johnson ticket 
in 1864: delegate to the Republican 
national convention in Chicago in 1868 and 
in Cincinnati in 1876; Judge of the Fifth 



Irdiana Circuit Court 1867-1869; Secre- 
tary of the Navy under President Hayes 
from March 12, 1877, until his resignation, 
December 21. 1880; chairman of the 
American Committee of the Panama Canal 
Company ; director of the Panama Rail- 
road Company. Died in Terre Haute, Ind., 
February 9. 1900. 

Joseph L. White was born in Cherry 
Valley, N. Y., fitted himself for the law, 
and began practice in the historic town 
of Madison. Served one term in Con- 
gress, then moved to New York, and there 
resumed the practice of law. Later on 
he engaged in manufacturing. Died 
January 12, 1861. 

James H. Cravens was by birth a Vir- 
ginian ; moved to Madison in 1829 and 
engaged in agricultural pursuits. Later 
on he located in Ripley county, where he 
practiced law and managed a farm. Was 
an elector on the Harrison ticket in 1840 
and served one term in Congress as a 
Whig. Though a Virginian by birth, he 
was a pronounced anti-slavery man. As 
such he was nominated for Governor by 
the Freesoilers in 1848, and, of course, 
defeated. His devotion to the Union im- 
pelled him, at the age of sixty, to enlist 
in the Eighty-third Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteers, of which he was made lieu- 
tenant-colonel. He died at Osgood, Ind., 
December 4, 1876, and was buried at Ver- 

Andrew Kennedy was one of the 
noted men of the State. Born in Dayton, 
Ohio, July 24, 1810, he came with his 
parents to Indiana, locating on the Indian 
reservation near Lafayette. Soon after he 
went to reside with an aunt in Conners- 
ville, where he became an apprentice in a 
blacksmith shop. While in the act of 
shoeing a horse he was kicked so severely 
that continuation at that trade was 
deemed physically impracticable and in- 
advisable. Fairly well equipped with a 
common school education, he qualified 
himself for the law. Located at Muncie, 

he was admitted to the bar in 1830. By 
reason of his fine natural abilities and his 
thorough understanding of human nature 
he built up a remunerative practice. Pos- 
sessing the elements of per.sonal popular- 
ity in an eminent degree, he was elected 
a member of the Legislature in 1835 and 
promoted to the Senate in 1838. As a 
candidate for Presidential elector in 1840 
he made quite a reputation as a stump 
speaker. Before the expiration of his 
term as Senator he was elected to Con- 
gress and thereafter twice re-elected, 
serving from 1841 to 1847. A fourth 
nomination was tendered him, but de- 
clined. He evinced a desire to be made 
United States Senator, to succeed Edward 
A. Hannegan, and at the opening of the 
legislative session, in December, 1841, 
proceeded to Indianapolis to make a can- 
vass for that high office. He was stricken 
with .smallpox, which dread disease pre- 
cipitated a rather unceremonious ad- 
journment of the General Assembly, 
though this was the only case in town. 
He died the last day of December of that 
year at the Palmer House, for many years 
Democratic headquarters. His body was 
taken at the dead of night, wrapped in 
the clothes of the bed in which he died, to 
the cemetery, attended only by the hack 
driver and sexton, and consigned to Moth- 
er Earth. The hackman and the sexton 
who performed the sad task of laying him 
away in his tomb contracted the fatal dis- 
ease which took him off and in less than 
two weeks thereafter were laid by his 
side. "A .sad ending," as Woollen put it, 
"was this of a career which promised so 
much." Deep-felt sorrow was manife.sted 
throughout the State over this .sad ending 
of an extraordinary career. While in 
Congress Mr. Kennedy delivered a re- 
markable speech on the celebrated Oregon 
bill, declaring himself in favor of the 
"fifty-four forty or fight" doctrine, gen- 
erally espoused by belligerent Democrats. 
So earnest was his delivery that he fainted 



at the conclusion of his speech. Upon re- 
covery congratulations on his forensic 
effort were literally showered upon him. 
Among those who thus manifested their 
appreciation of natural oratory was John 
Quincy Adams, a bitter opponent of the 
Oregon measure. Approaching the 
"Blacksmith orator," the illustrious Mas- 
sachusetts statesman said: "Kennedy, 
let me take by the hand the greatest nat- 
ural orator in America." In one of his 
characteristic speeches in the Senate the 
"Little Giant of the West," Stephen A. 
Douglas, made this reference to the Con- 
gressman from the Muncie district: "I 
am reminded of the case of Hon. Andrew 
Kennedy, a Democratic member of Con- 
gress from Indiana, who, some years ago, 
was elected from a district which had 
about four thousand Whig majority. One 
day he got up to make a speech in the 
House, when one of his colleagues asked 
how he got there. He replied: 'I come 
from the strongest Whig district in the 
State of Indiana, a district that gave Gen- 
eral Harrison a bigger majority than any 
other in the United States of America. I 
beat three of the ablest Whigs there were 
in the district, and I could have beaten 
three more if they had dared to run 
against me.' " 

David Wallace served but one term in 
Congress, from the Indianapolis district, 

after having served six years as Lieuten- 
ant-Governor and three years as Gov- 
ernor. He was denied a re-election to the 
Twenty-eighth Congress. According to 
Woollen, "Governor Wallace was not a 
money-making and money-getting man. 
He took more pleasure in filling his mind 
with knowledge than in filling his pockets 
with money. He entered into a business 
venture at Fort Wayne, which, proving 
unfortunate, cost him his entire estate. 
One day, while sitting in his yard talking 
with his eldest son, the sheriff came with 
an execution which he sought to levy upon 
the Governor's property. After some 
parleying the sheriff left, and the Gov- 
ernor, addressing his son, said: 'William, 
I want you to remember that it will be a 
good deal better to have a few thousand 
dollars laid away for old age than to have 
been the Governor of the State or a mem- 
ber of Congress.' " 

Henry Smith Lane was a native of 
Kentucky, served in the State Senate, 
filled the unexpired term of Tilghman A. 
Howard in Congress, was re-elected, and 
served in all from December 7, 1840, to 
March 3, 1843. He was strongly in favor 
of the Mexican war, in which he served 
as lieutenant-colonel of an Indiana regi- 
ment. He will receive further attention 
in subsequent chapters. 


[Chapter IX.] 



PNDER the constitution of 1816 
Representatives in the State 
Legislature were elected an- 
nually, for one year; Senators 
for three years. The county of 
JeiTerson, of which Madison 
then was and still is the county 
trongly Whig. In those days 
strife was easily engendered. 
The Whigs put in nomination for State 
Senator a rigid Sabbatarian who opposed 
Sunday mails. Assuming that the Demo- 
crats would not have the temerity to place 
a candidate of their own in the field, a 
more liberal faction of the Whig party 
trotted out a candidate of their way of 
thinking to oppose the regular nominee. 
Espying a fine opportunity to slip in be- 
tween these two Whig candidates, Jesse 
D. Bright entered the race and was tri- 
umphantly elected. He was a strong 
character, a man of affairs, a superb 
judge of human nature and an excellent 
mixer. He had served two years as Sen- 
ator when he was nominated by the De- 
mocracy for Lieutenant-Governor and 
after an animated campaign elected by a 
plurality exceeding four thousand. He 
made an excellent presiding officer and by 
his courtesy and fairness greatly en- 
deared himself to members of the General 

Previous to his election to these posi- 
tions he had served acceptably as Pro- 
bate Judge of Jefferson County and as 
United States Marshal for the State of In- 
diana. In the latter position he was 
afforded opportunity to form many 
acquaintances throughout the State. This 
doubtless contributed largely to his sub- 
sequent nomination and election to the 
office of Lieutenant-Governor. 

When the term of Albert S. White as 
United State Senator was about to expire, 
in 1845, Governor Whitcomb let it become 
known that he would greatly appreciate 
the honor of an election to that high office. 
But the Lieutenant-Governor was a bet- 
ter politician than the Chief Executive. 
So Bright carried away the honors, and 
the Governor had to defer his Senatorial 
aspirations until 1849, when the expira- 
tion of Edward A. Hannegan's term made 
it possible for Whitcomb to step from the 
gubernatorial chair into the seat then 
about to be vacated by the man who as 
a "dark horse" snatched away the Sen- 
atorial honors from Tilghman A. Howard 
in 1843. 

Though Bright had made himself quite 
solid with the party managers, opposition 
to his re-election developed in 1850. 
Robert Dale Owen, one of the ablest men 
in the State, had become an avowed can- 
didate for the succession. Charges were 
openly made that Bright sought to secure 
a re-election by bribery. He heard of it 
and hastened on to Indianapolis to defend 
himself. In an interview with Mr. Owen 
he easily proved his innocence of the 
charge preferred against him. Owen 
withdrew from the race and Bright was 
re-elected without further contest. 

Though an intense partisan. Bright 
sustained friendly relations with Henry 
Clay. On some public measures these two 
Senators agreed and co-operated. And 
Bright stood high in the Senate. This 
was made manifest when, in 1853, upon 
the death of Vice-President King, the In- 
diana Senator was elected President pro 
tempore. This position he filled creditably 
until John C. Breckinridge was installed 
as Vice-President in 1857. While presid- 



ing officer of the Senate Mr. Bright re- 
fused to assign three anti-slavery Sen- 
ators — Charles Sumner, Salmon P. Chase 
and John P. Hale — to any of the standing 
committees, upon the ground that "they 
were not members of any healthy political 

The death of Senator Whitcomb, after 
serving a few months more than half of 
his term, resulted in the appointment by 
Governor Joseph A. Wright, in the month 
of October, 1852, of Charles W. Cathcart, 
of Laporte county, to serve until the 
Legislature effected an election for the re- 
mainder of Senator Whitcomb's term. 
The choice of the Legislature of 1853 fell 
upon Judge John Pettit, of Lafayette. 
Dr. Graham N. Fitch, of Logansport, 
aspired to the position, but the caucus 
gave preference to Judge Pettit. The lat- 
ter served from the date of his election 
until March 4, 1855, when the Whitcomb 
term expired. The Legislature of 1855 
was unable to agree upon a joint session 
for the election of a Senator, so for two 
years Indiana had but one representative 
in the Upper House of Congress. The 
Legislature of 1857, chosen in 1856, was 
Democratic on joint ballot, the House be- 
ing of that faith, while the Senate was 
controlled by a combination of Repub- 
licans, Freesoilers, Know-Nothings and 
Prohibitionists, styling itself for the time 
being "The People's Party." 

Senator Bright's second term expired 
March 4, 1857. He was desirous of being 
made his own successor, but had doubts 
about the legality of an election in case a 
joint session could not be agreed upon by 
the two Houses of the General Assembly. 
The question was submitted to a commit- 
tee of three eminent jurists, who gave it 
as their opinion that an election effected 
by a majority of the entire membership 
of the Legislature would be valid. 
Thereupon it was decided to proceed to 
the election of two Senators — one to suc- 
ceed Bright, the other to fill the vacancy 

existing since 1855. This program was 
carried out, and Bright and Fitch were 
duly commissioned by Governor Willard. 
The Legislature elected in 1858 was Re- 
publican. After a protracted debate the 
election of Bright and Fitch was de- 
clared to have been illegal and therefore 
null and void. That done, Henry S. Lane 
and William M. McCarty were chosen to 
fill the two alleged vacancies. These gen- 
tlemen proceeded to Washington and 
claimed the seats held by Bright and 
Fitch. Admission was refused Lane and 
McCarty, although three distinguished 
Democrats — Douglas of Illinois, Mason of 
Virginia and Broderick of California — 
voted that the election of Bright and Fitch 
was irregular, illegal and therefore in- 

Bright had been unfriendly to Douglas 
for several years. The action just noted 
made him hate the "Little Giant" with all 
the intensity of his nature. He was as 
bitter in his enmity as he was cordial in 
his friendship. In such matters he toler- 
ated no middle ground. "He that is not 
for me is against me" guided his action 
throughout his political career. It is this 
that made him the relentless foe of Gov- 
ernor Joseph A. Wright, and to a some- 
what milder degree of Thomas A. Hen- 
dricks, David Turpie, Chas. W. Cathcart, 
W. J. Brown, W. A. Gorman, Robert Dale 
Owen, William S. Holman, and any num- 
ber of other distinguished Indiana Demo- 
crats who refused to conform to his 
wishes or to obey his commands. 

It is said that when President-elect 
James Buchanan had under consideration 
the formation of his Cabinet he had Sen- 
ator Bright in view for Secretary of 
State. The accuracy of this statement 
may well be questioned for various rea- 
sons, chief of which is that Buchanan 
finally chose for this position General 
Lewis Cass of Michigan, a man of diplo- 
matic qualities, of conciliatory disposi- 



tion, eminent ability, and in several re- 
spects the very opposite of the Indiana 

The strained relations existing between 
Senator Bright and Governor Wright did 
not deter the Democracy, in State conven- 
tion assembled at Indianapolis in Febru- 
ary, 1852, from giving these rival leaders 
this unqualified endorsement: 

"Resolved, That we approve and endorse 
the administration of our present Gov- 
ernor, Joseph A. Wright, and that we 
pledge to him, as nominee for re-election 
in the approaching contest, our hearty 

"Resolved, That we have undiminished 
confidence in the undeviating and well- 
tried Democracy of our distinguished and 
able Senators in Congress, James Whit- 
comb and Jesse D. Bright, and that we 
fully endorse their senatorial action." 

At the same convention General Joseph 
Lane was warmly endorsed for the Presi- 
dential nomination. The delegation was 
not formally instructed to vote for Lane 
"first, last and all the time," but directed 
to vote as a unit. The delegation voted 
on thirty ballots for Lane, then went over 
to Cass. On the thirty-fifth ballot a "dark 
horse" in the person of Franklin Pierce 
was entered and nominated on the forty- 
ninth ballot. 

In the convention of 1856 these endorse- 
ments were accorded the Senator and 

"Resolved, That the Democracy of In- 
diana have undiminished confidence in the 
Hon. Jesse D. Bright, our Senator in Con- 
gress, and while we are ready cheerfully 
and enthusiastically to support for the 
presidency in the approaching election 
whoever may be selected as the candidate 
for that office by the Democratic national 
convention, from whatever quarter of the 
Union he may come — if the Northwest is 
honored with that distinction we present 
the name of the Honorable Jesse D. Bright 
to that convention, and to the Democracy 
of the Union, as a suitable candidate and 
one whom the Democracy of Indiana de- 
light to honor. 

"Resolved, That the entire vote of the 
delegates from this State be cast as a unit 

in the national convention and that a ma- 
jority of the delegation shall control the 
entire vote of the State. 

"Resolved, That we approve of the ad- 
ministration of the State government by 
His Excellency, Joseph A. Wright, and 
that his integrity, ability and executive 
talents have fully met the expectations of 
the Democratic party of Indiana, and won 
for him increased confidence and gratitude 
from the people." 

Though residing in Indiana, Senator 
Bright owned a plantation over in Ken- 
tucky. He was a slave-owner and in full 
accord with the South on the question of 
slavery. Fully aware that civil war would 
eventuate in the destruction of slavery, 
he counseled against secession and rebel- 
lion. But he could not persuade himself to 
believe that the Union could be kept to- 
gether by coercive methods. His sym- 
pathies being Southern, his affiliations 
naturally were with Southerners. As a 
slaveholder he was oppo.sed to war being 
waged against the South. On the first day 
of March, 1861, while holding a seat in 
the United States Senate, he addressed a 
letter "To His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, 
President of the Confederation of States," 
in which he recommended his friend 
Thomas Lincoln of Texas to "favorable 
consideration as a gentleman of first re- 
spectability and reliable in every respect. 
He visits your capital mainly to dispose of 
what he regards a great improvement to 
firearms." The bearer of this letter \vas 
arrested on his way to the Confederate 
Capital with Senator Bright's letter upon 
his person. The matter was brought to 
the attention of the Senate; proceedings 
for expulsion were instituted, and after 
afli'ording ample opportunity for defense, 
the Senate expelled Mr. Bright from the 
seat he had uninterruptedly occupied for 
sixteen years. 

In the campaign of 1860 Senator Bright 
opposed both the nomination and election 
of Stephen A. Douglas to the Presidency. 
While he did not deem it advisable to put 
a State ticket in the field, he did bring into 



1 6 

the race a Breckinridge and Lane elector- 
al ticket. He entered upon a vigorous 
campaign, earnestly appealing to his old- 
time friends to stand by him in this crisis. 
Out of a total vote of 272,143 he managed 
to poll 12,295 for Breckinridge and Lane. 

When a Democratic Legislature was 
elected in 1862 Mr. Bright did his utmost 
to induce the Democrats of that body to 
"vindicate" him with an election to his 
unexpired term in the Senate. This was 
refused, the choice of the party having 
been centered on Mr. Hendricks' running 
mate in 1860, David Turpie. Responsi- 
bility for this "slight" was laid at the door 
of Mr. Hendricks, whom Bright dubbed 
"Oily Gammon," but who nevertheless re- 
tained for an even quarter of a century 
the unquestioned and uncontested leader- 
ship of the Indiana Democracy. 

Soon after the infliction of this sore 
disappointment Mr. Bright concluded to 
shake the dust of Indiana off his boots 
and to take up his residence on his plan- 
tation in Kentucky. He served two terms 
in the Legislature of that commonwealth 
and was at one time talked of for the 
United States Senatorship. He had ex- 
tensive interests in the coal mines of West 
Virginia, which afforded him a large in- 
come. In 1874 he moved to Baltimore. 
Broken down in health, he died in that 
city of organic disease of the heart. May 
20, 1875. 

Toward the close of the war Mr. Bright 
appears to have experienced some moder- 
ation of his ultra political views. He 
earnestly supported the reconciliation 
and reconstruction policy of President 
Johnson, and in 1868 favored the nomina- 
tion by the Democrats of Salmon P. Chase 
for the Presidency. In 1869 he wanted 
the Democrats of the Indiana Legislature 
to enter into a combination to elect one of 
the Republican bolters to the United 
States Senate, his choice being a former 
trusted lieutenant of his. Senator James 
Hughes, who, during the rebellion, joined 

the Republican party. Like Clement L. 
Vallandigham, of Ohio, Jesse D. Bright 
believed in letting by-gones be by-gones, 
in gracefully accepting the decree of fate, 
and acquiescing in changes that could not 
be prevented. In other words, he believed 
in the advisability of what in Ohio was 
dubbed "the new departure." In a speech 
delivered by Mr. Hendricks in 1872 he ex- 
pressed substantially the same idea when 
he said : "Let us turn our backs upon the 
past and look hopefully to the future." 



In view of the importance of this case 
and the general misconception of the points 
mvolved therein, the reader will doubtless 
appreciate highly the presentation of the 
legal aspect by an authority of the em- 
inence of Judge David Turpie. As a 
member of the General Assembly of 1859 
he bore a conspicuous part in the animated 
contest over the proposition to annul the 
action of the preceding Legislature. 
What he had to say on this interesting 
subject is well worth studious perusal: 

"As upon my former service in the Gen- 
eral Assembly, so now, came again the 
question of the senatorial election, as the 
first business of the session of 1858, which 
arose in the following manner: the Legis- 
lature of 1855, chosen in 1854, had the 
duty imposed upon it of choosing a United 
States Senator. But the two houses of that 
body being of different political faith, de- 
clined to go into joint convention for that 
purpose. The vacancy caused by the ex- 
piration of Mr. Pettit's term was not filled, 
and for two years Indiana had only one 
member in the Senate, Mr. Jesse D. Bright. 
The Legislature of 1857, chosen in 1856, 
was Democratic on joint ballot; of its two 
branches the House was Democratic, the 
Senate was controlled by the opposition. 

"Under these circumstances the House 
appointed a day for the election of two 
Senators, one to fill the vacancy existing 
since 1855, the other to fill the vacancy 
about to occur bv the expiration of Mr. 
Bright's term. The Senate, as such, ig- 



1 (j - 1 9 1 6 

nored this action of the House, but the 
Democratic members of that body left 
their seats in the Senate Chamber, came 
over to the House on the day appointed, 
organized a joint convention and elected 
Doctor Graham N. Fitch to fill the existing 
vacancy, and Mr. Jesse D. Bright as his 
own successor for a third term, each of 
them receiving a majority of all the votes 
of all the members elected to the General 
Assembly. The opposition in our State, 
and especially that of the Legislature of 
1858, including the anti-administration 
Democrats, held that the election of Bright 
and Fitch so conducted was unconstitu- 
tional and invalid ; that both vacancies 
were yet unfilled and that it was their duty 
to elect two Senators. They took the 
ground that the word Legislature, in the 
clause of the federal constitution relating 
to the election of Senators, necessarily im- 
plied the concuri-ent action of both Houses 
as such to form a lawful joint convention. 
We contended, on the contrary, that the 
v.'ord Legislature was not used in any tech- 
nical sense in the clause referred to, and 
that the majority of the whole number of 
members might legally form a joint con- 
vention and elect Senators without such 
concurrent action. In support of this con- 
struction we referred to the fact that, at 
the time of making the federal constitu- 
tion, several of the States, notably Penn- 
sylvania, had a Legislature composed of 
only one chamber, and that the framers of 
that instrument, sitting in Philadelphia, 
could not possibly have contemplated the 
two houses as such in the use of the term 
Legislature, but had used it as we still use 
the word magistracy, to designate the col- 
lective body of all the persons in the coun- 
ty or State who are employed in the duty 
of administering justice. 

"The debate lasted many days; in the 
House it became quite warm and exciting; 
the Speaker, Mr. Gordon, left the chair to 
take part in it ; at .last a vote was taken 
and we were beaten. No further resist- 
ance was offered. We kept our seats, took 
no part in the proceedings, and our col- 
leagues of the opposition held a joint con- 
vention in which they chose Mr. Henry S. 
Lane and Mr. William M. McCarty as Sen- 
ators from Indiana to fill the supposed 
vacancies. I wrote a full argument upon 
the law and facts of the case, closing with 
an earnest request for federal legislation 
on this question, which was seconded by 

several of my colleagues. It seemed to be 
a careless and somewhat dangerous predic- 
ament that the Legislatures of the States 
should continue in many different ways to 
elfict Senators, when Congress had the un- 
doubted right to prescribe by law a uni- 
form method of pi'ocedure. Copies of 
these papers were sent to Senators of both 
parties at Washington. Many letters were 
received in answer. Some of them ap- 
proved, others disapproved the grounds 
taken in argument in the particular case, 
but all concurred in the necessity of Con- 
gressional action. Yet such was the po- 
litical stress of that troubled period, now 
approaching in the history of our country, 
that it was not until after the conclusion 
of the war that Congress enacted this 
much-needed legislation. On the 26th of 
July, 1866, an act was passed regulating 
the mode of choosing Senators by the Leg- 
islature. Since that time our Senators in 
Indiana and elsewhere have been elected 
according to its provisions. 

"Mr. W. H. Seward and Mr. William G. 
Bayard, who were Senators in 1858, Mr. 
Hendricks and Mr. Lane, who were Sena- 
tors in 1866, have more than once stated 
in my presence that it was the Indiana 
case with its non-election in 1855, and its 
contested election of 1858, that chiefly im- 
pelled Congress to take its subsequent ac- 
tion in the premises. The United States 
Senate held that the election of Bright and 
Fitch was valid. Mr. Lane and Mr. Mc- 
Carty returned from Washington as pri- 
vate citizens, but they lost nothing in pub- 
lic estimation by their journey, nor was 
the action of our Legislature useless or un- 
profitable. It led to the passage of a gen- 
eral law on this subject, one of the 
important of our statutes at large. 

"Although very firmly convinced of the 
correctness of our opinion upon the ques- 
tion of the Senatorial election, what gave 
additional zeal to my action was the cir- 
cumstance that Graham N. Fitch, the 
friend of my youth, was deeply interested 
in the result. He served in the United 
States Senate until March 4, 1861, taking 
first rank in that body. He was afterward 
a colonel in the army; he had the choice 
of many titles, but he preferred to be 
called Doctor. That designated his favor- 
ite pursuit. He was often and long en- 
gaged in public employments of the high- 
est character. He entered, indeed he was, 
so to speak, drafted into the work of the 



lecture-room, taught as a professor in the 
medical schools of Indianapolis, Cincinnati 
and Chicago, but always returned to his 
home — to his office in Logansport. To the 
profession he had given his first love, and 
it never grew old or cold ; he continued in 
it almost to the day of his death, not from 
necessity, but from the love he bore it. 
His early labors in the active practice were 
constant and toilsome. He always drove 
with two horses. I have met him more 
than once, returning from some distant 
night-call in the country, seated in his 
buggy fast asleep, while his faithful team 
noiselessly picked their way along the cor- 
duroy road, seeming loath to disturb the 
slumbers of their master. 

"As a public speaker Doctor Fitch was 
versatile and attractive. When he took the 
stump he bade good-by to the physician. 
There was not the least trace of the mate- 
ria medica, either in his manner or utter- 
ances, nothing of either shop or sham. He 
had read and thought much upon the con- 
stitutional principles of our government, 
and had formed his opinions of the proper 
mode of their development by legislation. 
He cited with eif ect and with precision the 
writings of Jefferson, Jackson and other 
worthies of the Democratic school, but an 
authority to be cited by him must always 
be brief and pointed. A skillful disputant, 
he had great powers of apprehension and 
penetration; he detected in the twinkling 
of an eye any infirmity or inconsistency 
in the position of an opponent, and as 
quickly exposed it. 

"In a prolonged series of joint discus- 
sions with Mr. Schuyler Colfax he defeat- 
ed that gentleman for Congress, the only 
defeat suffered by him in a long political 
career. During the Civil War Fitch was 
authorized to raise a regiment, the Forty- 
sixth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers, 
which he subsequently commanded in the 
field. His recruits were gathered by a 
public canvass made by him in his own 
and adjoining counties. Several times I 
accompanied him in this canvass and spoke 
from the same stand. His account of the 
beginning, course and termination of the 
movement of secession was the most high- 
ly finished and thoroughly wrought-out 
discussion of that topic I have ever heard. 
His exhortation to the sons of Indiana in 
behalf of the Union and the constitution 
was irresistible. His regiment was rapid- 

ly filled by volunteer enlistments to its full 
complement. Our young men were anx- 
ious to go with him." 

The strong affection Judge Turpie felt 
for Dr. Fitch was richly merited. It was 
based on sterling worth. Friendship be- 
tween two such men has in it genuineness 
and sincerity. Had it been lacking in 
these essentials, it would not have been 
professed. Both had a decided aversion 
to mere profession, to hollow pretense. 

Graham Newell Fitch was bom in Le- 
roy, N. Y., December 5, 1809. He studied 
medicine in the medical college at Fair- 
field, N. Y., practiced in Logansport, Ind., 
was professor in Rush Medical College of 
Chicago from 1844 to 1849 ; was presiden- 
tial elector in 1844, 1848 and 1856 ; mem- 
ber of the Legislature in 1836 and 1839; 
chosen member of Congress in 1848 and 
re-elected in 1850 ; served as United States 
Senator four years, from February 4, 
1857, to March 4, 1861. At the outbreak 
of the rebellion he raised the Forty-sixth 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteers, making 
earnest appeals to the young men of his 
part of the State to rally to the defense of 
the imperiled Union and the vindication of 
the supremacy of governmental authority. 
He deplored secession and deprecated dis- 
sension. His speeches breathed the spirit 
of genuine patriotism and contributed 
largely to solidifying public sentiment in 
support of the Government. After the 
war he served as a delegate to the Demo- 
cratic National Convention that in 1868 
nominated Governor Horatio Seymour for 
President and General Frank P. Blair for 
Vice-President. He died at Logansport, 
November 29, 1892. 


With absolute truthfulness it may be 
said that Indiana fairly abounded with 
men of unusual ability and eminent quali- 
fication for public service. This circum- 
stance confirms the view not infrequently 




expressed that if a nation wants strong 
and able men there must be trials and 
tribulations; even poverty can hardly be 
considered a drawback in the development 
of individual stamina. Certain it is that 
if thei-e had been three or four times the 
number of important stations to fill no 
scarcity of material would have been 
found to exist to fill them all, and fill them 

John Pettit came within this category. 
Born in Sacketts Harbor, N. Y., June 24, 
1807, he fitted himself for the law, and 
after admission to the bar, acted upon 
Horace Greeley's advice: "Go West, 
young man, and grow up with the coun- 
try." He located in Lafayette, Ind., where 
he began practice in 1838. His public 
career began with two terms in the Legis- 
lature. He was appointed United States 

District Attorney, and from that position 
was advanced to three terms in Congress, 
serving continuously from March 4, 1843, 
to March 3. 1849. In 1850 he was chosen 
a delegate to the constitutional convention 
and helped to frame the present constitu- 
tion. As an elector he helped to cast In- 
diana's vote for Pierce and King in 1852, 
and the following year he was elected 
United States Senator to fill the latter part 
of Whitcomb's unexpired term. During 
the troublous days of the Kansas-Nebraska 
fight he was appointed Chief Justice of 
the United States courts in Kansas. After 
some years of release from public life he 
was, in 1870, elected a member of the 
Supreme Court of Indiana, which position 
he filled with marked ability. He died at 
Lafayette, January 17, 1877. Judge Pettit 
was a big man, physically as well as men- 


[Chapter X.] 

IN 1846 

VENTS of magnitude, of tre- 

Q^ mendous importance, followed 
I one another in quick succession 
I since the election and inaugura- 
tion of President Polk. Per- 
sons who, during the campaign 
of 1844, derisively asked, "Who 
the deuce is James K. Polk?" had their 
minds disabused as to his qualification 
and fitness for the high office to which he 
was chosen over the gifted, eloquent and 
idolized Henry Clay. Though nominated 
as a "dark horse," James K. Polk had 
made an enviable record, as member of 
Congress from 1825 to 1839, as chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, as 
Speaker of the House during a most ex- 
citing period of federal legislation, and as 
Governor of Tennessee. His inaugural ad- 
dress, replete with sound sentiment, strong 
common sense, lofty patriotism, and enun- 
ciation of high purposes, was read with 
amazement by those who had sought to 
belittle him and with satisfaction and su- 
preme pleasure by those who believed him 
to be worthy of filling the chair vacated 
eight years before by that other sturdy 
Tennesseean, Andrew Jackson. 

The tariff", as will be remembered, was 
one of the main issues in the campaign of 
1844. Up to this time no clearer or more 
forceful exposition of the real Democratic 
position on that question had been made 
by any public man authorized to speak for 
the party than that set forth in President 
Polk's inaugural address. In view of the 
fact that the views therein expressed were 
subsequently made the basis of the 
"Walker tariff," some extracts from the 
Polk inaugural address will be found both 
interesting and instructive. Note the sim- 
plicity, clearness and vigor of this elucida- 
tion of the Government's authority to levy 
taxes upon imports : 

"One of the difficulties which we have 
had to encounter in the practical adminis- 
tration of the Government consists in the 
adjustment of our revenue laws and the 
levy of the taxes necessary for the sup- 
port of Government. In the general 
proposition that no more money shall be 
collected than the necessities of an eco- 
nomical administration shall require all 
parties seem to acquiesce. Nor does there 
seem to be any material difference of 
opinion as to the absence of right in the 
Government to tax one section of country, 
or one class of citizens, or one occupation, 
for the mere profit of another. 'Justice 
and sound policy forbid the Federal Gov- 
ernment to foster one branch of industry 
to the detriment of another, or to cherish 
the interests of one portion to the injury 
of another portion of our common coun- 
try.' I have heretofore declared to my 
fellow-citizens that 'in my judgment it is 
the duty of the Government to extend, as 
far as it may be practicable to do so, by 
its revenue laws and all other means 
within its power, fair and just protection 
to all the great interests of the whole 
Union, embracing agriculture, manufac- 
tures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and 
navigation.' I have also declared my opin- 
ion to be 'in favor of a tariff for revenue,' 
and that 'in adjusting the details of such 
a tariff I have sanctioned such moderate 
discriminating duties as would produce 
the amount of revenue needed and at the 
same time afford reasonable incidental 
lirotection to our home industry,' and that 
I was 'opposed to a tariff for protection 
merely, and not for revenue.' 

"The power 'to lay and collect taxes, 
duties, imposts and excises' was an indis- 
pensable one to be conferred on the Fed- 
eral Government, which without it would 
possess no means of providing for its own 
support. In executing this power by 
levying a tariff of duties for the support 
of Government, the raising of revenue 
should be the object and protectioji the 
incident. To reverse this principle and 
make protection the object and revenue 
the incident would be to inflict manifest 
injustice upon all other than the protected 



interests. In levying duties for revenue 
it is doubtless proper to make such dis- 
criminations within the revenue principle 
as will afford incidental protection to our 
home interests. Within the revenue limit 
there is a discretion to discriminate; be- 
yond that limit the rightful exercise of 
the power is not conceded. The incidental 
protection afforded to our home interests 
by discriminations within the revenue 
range it is believed will be ample. In 
making discriminations all our home in- 
terests should as far as practicable be 
equally protected. The largest portion of 
our people are agriculturists. Others are 
employed in manufactures, commerce, 
navigation and the mechanic arts. They 
are all engaged in their respective pur- 
suits, arid their joint labors constitute the 
national or home industry. To tax one 
branch of this home industry for the 
benefit of another would be unjust. No 
one of these interests can rightfully claim 
an advantage over the others, or to be en- 
riched by impoverishing the others. All 
are equally entitled to the fostering care 
and protection of the Government. In ex- 
ercising a sound discretion in levying dis- 
criminating duties within the limit pre- 
scribed, care should be taken that it be 
done in a manner not to benefit the 
wealthy few at the expense of the toiling 
millions by taxing lowest the luxuries of 
life, or articles of superior quality and high 
price, which can only be consumed by the 
wealthy, and highest the necessaries of 
life, or articles of coarse quality and low 
price, which the poor and great mass of 
our people must consume. The burdens 
of government should as far as practicable 
be distributed justly and equally among 
all classes of our population. These gen- 
eral views, long entertained on this sub- 
ject, I have deemed it proper to reiterate. 
It is a subject upon which conflicting in- 
terests of sections and occupations are 
supposed to exist, and a spirit of mutual 
concession and compromise in adjusting 
its details should be cherished by every 
part of our widespread country as the 
only means of preserving hai-mony and a 
cheerful acquiescence of all in the opera- 
tion of our revenue laws. Our patriotic 
citizens in every part of the Union will 
readily submit to the payment of such 
taxes as shall be needed for the support 
of their Government, whether in peace 

or in war, if they are so levied as to dis- 
tribute the burdens as equally as possible 
among them." 

Whatever conflict of opinion there may 
exist with reference to federal taxation, 
there can be no question as to the views 
set forth in the foregoing extracts always 
having served as a guidance to Democratic 
legislation in framing laws to raise reve- 
nue for carrying on the machinery of the 
general government. 

The public mind during this time was 
largely engrossed with "burning ques- 
tions" relating to the Mexican war, the 
annexation of Texas, the Oregon dispute, 
etc. Opinions differed widely. In regard 
to Mexico and Texas, the slavery question 
became an important factor. Those who 
were radically opposed to the opening of 
any more slave territory were irreconcil- 
ably against the annexation of Texas. 
Those who Avere content with the policy of 
admitting into the Union territories in 
pairs, one with slavery and the other with- 
out, generally favored the annexation of 
Texas and waging war upon Mexico for a 
variety of wrongs and outrages perpe- 
trated by the Mexicans. In Indiana so 
prominent a Whig leader as Henry S. 
Lane, who in later years (1856) presided 
over the first national convention of the 
newly organized Republican party and 
who in 1860 was chosen Governor, was not 
only an earnest and enthusiastic champion 
of the war against Mexico, but became ac- 
tively engaged in the enlistment of volun- 
teers. In his speeches, made to arouse the 
war spirit of Indiana, he bitterly attacked 
the Whig leaders who opposed the Mexican 
war. He personally organized a company, 
was made major of the regiment of which 
his company constituted a part, was sub- 
sequently promoted to the lieutenant- 
colonelcy, and served gallantly to the end 
of his regiment's enlistment. In Ohio, on 
the other hand, many of the Whig leaders 
were violently opposed to the war with 
Mexico. The foremost among them, 
Thomas Corwin, for many years a distin- 


1 8 1 

19 16 

guished member of Congress and several 
limes elected Governor of that Common- 
wealth, vehemently opposed and bitterly 
denounced the Mexican war. Elected to 
the United States Senate in 1844, and 
noted for his eloquence and power of 
oratory, he created a sensation by deliver- 
ing a speech on the Mexican war question 
in the course of which he exclaimed: "If 
I were a Mexican as I am an American, I 
would welcome you with bloody hands to 
hospitable graves." This unpatriotic dec- 
laration was deprecated by many of his 
friends and admirers and had the effect of 
greatly diminishing and eventually de- 
stroying the popularity he had enjoyed for 
so many years. 

Governor Whitcomb made an excellent 
record as chief executive. His persistent, 
well-directed efforts to repair the injury 
inflicted upon the State and its credit by 
the bungling and impracticable methods 
adopted under Whig administrations met 
with high appreciation. So, when the time 
came for naming his successor, there was 
no diversity of opinion in his party as to 
the advisability of renominating James 
Whitcomb for Governor. As his running 
mate Paris C. Dunning was named. The 
election in August shows this result : 


James Whitcomb, Democrat 64,104 

Joseph G. Marshall, Whig 60,067 

Stephen C. Stephens, Abolitionist 2,278 

The official returns as given in the re- 

port of the Secretary of State for 184(5 
vary from the above. The figures therein 
given are : 


James Whitcomb 63,94.'") 

Joseph G. Marshall r,9,93.3 

Stephen C. Stevens 2,278 

Thomas F. Marshall (Clark county only). . 71 

Joseph Hardinp; (Jay county only) 17 


Paris C. Dunning, Democrat 62,808 

Alexander C. Stevenson, Whig .59,132 

Stephen S. Harding, Abolitionist 2,281 

Edward E. Moore, in his "A Century of 
Indiana," bestows this well-deserved trib- 
ute upon the recipient of the popular en- 
dorsement above recorded: "It was during 
Governor Whitcomb's administration that 
the compromise with the State's creditors 
was arived at, whereby the Wabash and 
Erie Canal, together with the canal lands 
granted by the Government, and other 
rights and franchises, were transferred in 
discharge of one-half of the State's indebt- 
edness, and new bonds, at a lower rate of 
interest, issued for the remaining half. 
With this settlement confidence was re- 
stored, and the panic having spent its 
force, prosperity began gradually to re- 

December 27, 1848, Governor Whitcomb 
was elected a Senator of the United States. 
He thereupon resigned as Governor and 
was succeeded by Paris C. Dunning, Lieu- 
tenant-Governor, who served as Governor 
during the remainder of the term. In 
1849 Joseph A. Wright, Democrat, was 
elected Governor. 

[Chapter XL] 



UEER circumstances arose in 
1848. The two leading parties, 
Whig and Democratic, came 
near agreeing, in the main, on 
the slavery question, although 
the Whigs generally opposed 
the war against Mexico and 
were anything but pleased over the an- 
nexation of Texas. The campaign was a 
queer one in this, that the successful 
aspirant to the Presidency was a slave- 
holder and that whatever fame attached 
to his name was acquired in the Mexican 
war, which most of those who voted for 
him, especially in the North, had bitterly 

The annexation of Texas had been ap- 
proved by President Tyler shortly before 
the inauguration of President Polk. It 
was an open secret that one of the pur- 
poses of the war against Mexico was to 
get a slice of that country with a view to 
making slave territory thereof. In annex- 
ing Texas a stipulation was incorporated 
into the treaty that the "Lone Star State" 
might be cut up into five separate and dis- 
tinct States. Had this program been car- 
ried fully into effect, the slave power in 
the Union would have been largely in- 
creased. But it wasn't. Texas was not 
subdivided, and none of the territory taken 
from Mexico became "consecrated" to 
slavery. To guard against the latter con- 
tingency an amendment to the bill appro- 
priating 822,000,000 for a treaty of peace 
with Mexico, commonly known as the 
"Wilmot," was tacked on through 
the instrumentality of such anti-slavery 
Democrats as David Wilmot of Pennsyl- 
vania and Judge Brinckerhoff of Ohio, ex- 
pressly forbidding the introduction of 
slavery in any part of the territory that 

might be acquired from Mexico. Though 
this amendment, adopted by the House, 
was never formally concurred in by the 
Senate, it accomplished its purpose in an 
indirect manner. The vote in the House 
was quite decisive, 83 to 64, only three 
Democrats from the non-slave-holding 
States voting against it. General Lewis 
Cass, nominated for the Presidency by the 
Democrats in 1848, had declared himself 
in favor of the "Wilmot Proviso," but sub- 
sequently modified his opinion on that 
subject, doubtless with a view to pro- 
pitiating the South. This, however, did 
not prove helpful to him in the campaign. 
The anti-slavery Democrats used this 
change of attitude effectively against him 
by showing that the "Wilmot Proviso" 
was but a repetition of the clause prohibit- 
ing slavery that was put into the ordinance 
of 1787 by Thomas Jefferson, when the 
Northwestern Territory was ceded by Vir- 
ginia to the United States. 

The Democratic National Convention 
met at Baltimore on the 22d day of May, 
1848. It was presided over by Andrew 
Stevenson of Kentucky. The two-thirds 
vote was adopted by a vote of 175 to 78. 
Complications had arisen in the State of 
New York that resulted in sending two 
delegations to the Baltimore convention, 
one dominated by Daniel S. Dickinson, the 
other by Samuel J. Tilden. The latter 
made a strong representation of regular- 
ity; the Dickinson delegation represented 
the administration element. The ill feel- 
ing between the two factions, one called 
the "Barnburners," the other the "Hunk- 
ers," was intensified by the circumstance 
that Senator Silas Wright, dearly beloved 
by the New York Democracy, after having 
declined the nomination for the Vice- 


-19 1 

Presidency in 1844 — made to conciliate 
the Van Buren element in 1844 — was sub- 
sequently induced to accept the nomina- 
tion for Governor that year. This ar- 
rangement had the effect of reconciling 
the Van Burenites and of carrying the 
State handsomely for Polk and Dallas as 
well as for Silas Wright for Governor. 
Two years later, when put in the field for 
re-election, Governor Wright met with 
overAvhelming defeat. Responsibility for 
this humiliation was laid at the door of 
the "Hunkers." Intense bitterness was 
engendered, and when the time came for 
appointing delegates to the national con- 
vention the "Barnburners" had things 
pretty much their own way. But the 
"Hunkers," under the skillful leadership 
of Daniel S. Dickinson, organized their 
forces and appointed a contesting delega- 
tion. They charged the "Barnburners" 
with being antagonistic to the established 
policy of the party with reference to the 
slavery question and as being hostile to 
the Polk admini-stration. The wrangle 
over the disputing delegations from the 
Empire State lasted two days. After an 
intensely acrimonious debate a motion was 
finally adopted by a vote of 126 to 124 to 
admit both delegations, each to cast half 
of the vote of the State. Though this was 
deemed a comparative victory for the 
"Barnburners," they withdrew from the 
convention, and the "Hunkers" consider- 
ately declined to participate in the further 
deliberations of that body. 

The leading candidates for the Presi- 
dential nomination were Lewis Cass of 
Michigan, James Buchanan of Pennsyl- 
vania and Levi Woodbury of New Hamp- 
shire. A few scattering votes were cast 
for Vice-President George M. Dallas of 
Pennsylvania, W. J. Worth of Texas, John 
C. Calhoun of South Carolina and W. 0. 
Butler of Kentucky. Necessary to a choice 
on the first and second ballots, 168; on 
the third and fourth, 169. Cass received 
125 votes on the first ballot, 133 on the 

second, 156 on the third, and 179 on 
the fourth — ten more than necessary. 
Buchanan's vote was 55, 54, 40, 33 ; Wood- 
bury's, 53, 56, 53, 38. Cass was declared 
duly nominated on the fourth ballot, 
whereupon the convention took a recess 
until the evening to place in nomination a 
candidate for Vice-President. William 0. 
Butler of Kentucky was largely in the lead 
on the first ballot, receiving 114 votes, as 
against 74 for J. A. Quitman of Missis- 
sippi, 24 for John T. Mason of Virginia, 
29 for William R. King of Alabama, 13 
for James J. McKay of North Carolina and 
one for Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. A 
second ballot was ordered and Butler was 
honored with an unanimous nomination. 

For a platform the convention adopted 
a declaration of principles embodying (in 
condensed form) these points: 

" '1. That the American Democracy 
place their trust in the intelligence, the 
patriotism, and the discriminating justice 
of the American people. 2. We regard 
this (trust) as a distinctive feature of 
our political creed . . . and contrast 
it with the creed and practice of fed- 
eralism, under whatever name or form. 
. . . 3. The Democratic party . . . 
renew and reassert before the American 
people the declaration of principles avowed 
by them on a former occasion.' (Here fol- 
low resolutions 1, 2, 3 and 4, of 1840). 

. . 8. 'No more revenue ought to be 
raised than is required to defray the neces- 
sary expenses of the Government, and for 
the gradual but certain extinction of the 
debt. . . . (Here follows resolution 5, 
of 1840, with the addition) : "And that 
the results of Democratic legislation, in 
this and all other financial measures 
. have demonstrated . . . their 
soundness, safety and utility in all busi- 
ness pursuits." ' (Here follow resolutions 
7, 8 and 9, of 1840, and 10 and 11, of 
1844). 15, 16 and 17. Justify the war 
with Mexico, and compliments the army 
for its service therein. 18. Tenders fra- 
ternal congratulations to the National 
Convention of the Republic of France. 19. 
Declares the duty of the Democratic party 
'to sustain and advance among us consti- 
tutional liberty, equality and fraternity, 
by continuing to resist all monopolies.' 



. . . 20. Orders a copy of these reso- 
lutions to be forwarded to the French Re- 
public. 21. Recapitulates the chief 
measures of Polk's administration and de- 
clares that 'it would be a fatal error to 
weaken the bands of a political organiza- 
tion by which these great reforms have 
been achieved, and risk them in the hands 
of their known adversaries.' . . . 22. 
Compliments and congratulates President 
Polk. 23. Presents Lewis Cass as can- 

When the convention adjourned the be- 
lief among delegates was quite general 
that the New York trouble would be 
adjusted somehow, as it was four years 
before. Their hopeful conjectures were, 
however, doomed to disappointment. To 
the more thoughtful ones among the dele- 
gates the signs of the times were ominous. 
The bitterness of the dispute between the 
New York factions had filled their minds 
with apprehension of dire results. 


Democratic troubles had not afforded 
much encouragement to the Whig leaders 
when they turned their attention to the 
nomination of a Presidential ticket. They 
recognized in General Cass a man of high 
character, of inflexible integrity, and of 
distinguished ability. He had manifested 
(jualities of both leadership and statesman- 
ship that at once rendered his candidacy 
formidable and assuring. As astute ob- 
servers the Whig leaders realized that 
their own party was in a dilemma. Presi- 
dential timber in their ranks had become 
scarce for the time being. Daniel Webster 
was no longer considered an available 
quantity. By reason of his equivocal atti- 
tude on some of the "burning issues" of 
that period Henry Clay had forfeited the 
support of many of his former ardent ad- 
mirers. He still had a strong hold upon 
popular affection, but his repeated failures 
in Presidential races awakened doubts in 
the minds of even his most devoted fol- 
lowers as to his further availability. No 

one in the North had risen to prominence 
and distinction to be seriously considered 
in connection with a Presidential nomina- 
tion. General Winfield Scott had some 
support, but he was adjudged too "fussy" 
to be made a safe standard-bearer. After 
many earnest consultations the conclusion 
seems to have been reached that the "man 
of the hour" was General Zachary Taylor 
of Louisiana — "Old Rough and Ready" 
his adherents fondly called him. It was 
freely admitted, however, that he was not 
without flaws. He was not a man of con- 
spicuous ability ; he had no claim to large 
civic experience ; no one pretended that he 
was on terms of intimacy with statesman- 
ship. The only tangible argument in his 
favor was that he had made a creditable 
record as commander of the United States 
forces in subduing the Mexicans. At the 
same time they were confronted with the 
fact that the opportunity then to distin- 
guish himself emanated from Democratic 
authority and favoritism by being assigned 
to chief command in preference to Gen- 
eral Scott. On the other hand, the fact 
that he was a slaveholder and wholly with- 
out a political record made the anti-slavery 
men in the party feel dubious as to the ad- 
visability of making him the nominee of a 
party that had all along denounced as un- 
warranted and unjustifiable the war upon 
Mexico. Then the only assurance any one 
had that Taylor even considered himself 
a member of the Whig party was the some- 
what vague declaration that if he had 
voted at the election in 1844 his ballot 
would have been cast for the Whig nom- 
inee, Henry Clay. Several attempts were 
made in the loi'm of resolutions to bind 
those who had the Taylor interests in cus- 
tody to something definite, but all motions 
and resolutions tending in that direction 
were promptly, arbitrarily and auto- 
cratically ruled out of order by the pi-esid- 
ing officer of the convention, ex-Governor 
John M. Morehead of North Carolina. 
The convention met in the city of Phila- 



delphia June 7, in what was then known 
as Chinese Hall. All the States except 
Texas were represented. After a good 
deal of parleying and sparring a pledge 
was finally obtained from the leaders of 
the Taylor element that if not nominated 
by this convention he would not be the 
candidate of any other party and that he 
would support the Whig ticket. Upon 
final assurances being given by a formid- 
able array of Southern delegates that Tay- 
lor would accept the nomination, would 
abide by the decision of the party, and 
that he could safely be trusted as an ex- 
ponent of the Whig party, the hero of 
the Mexican war was nominated for the 
Presidency on the fourth ballot. He had 
111 votes on the first ballot, 118 on the 
second, 133 on the third, and 171 on the 
fourth. Henry Clay started out with 97, 
dropped to 86 on the second, 74 on the 
third, and to 32 on the final ballot. Win- 
field Scott started with 43, rose to 49 on 
the second ballot, to 54 on the third, and 
to 63 on the fourth and last. Daniel Web- 
ster's vote was 22, 22, 17, 14. The Taylor- 
ites were considerably chagrined over 
their inability to secure the adoption of a 
resolution to make the nomination unani- 
mous, but some of the New England and 
Ohio delegates expressed themselves so 
emphatically against such approval of an 
unsatisfactory nomination that the at- 
tempt had to be abandoned. These dele- 
gates subsequently identified themselves 
with the Van Buren Freesoil movement, 
thereby (unwittingly and indirectly) 
bringing about the election of the very 
man whose nomination they refused to 
permit to be made unanimous. It was Van 
Buren's candidacy that made possible 
Zachary Taylor's election. 

Among the sorest of the participants 
of the convention was Horace Greeley, 
sage, philosopher, and editor of the Neiv 
York Tribune. This truckling to the slave 
power was galling to that fearless journal- 
ist and pronounced champion of the anti- 

slavery cause. When it was determined 
not to adopt a platform, by reason of the 
existing diversity of opinion, and of fear 
to make any sort of expression on the 
slavei-y question, Greeley left Philadelphia 
in disgust and repaired to his sanctum 
sanctorum in New York to indite a scath- 
ing denunciation of the cowardliness of 
the Whig convention. In terms character- 
istic of that master journalist the nomina- 
tion of General Taylor was bitterly de- 
nounced in the Tribune. The article was 
headed "The Philadelphia Slaughter- 
house." It was a terrific arraignment of 
political cowardice and imbecility and 
caused a tremendous sensation for the time 
being. As time wore on and the Van 
Buren movement began to assume formid- 
able proportions, Greeley's indignation 
subsided somewhat. Though in hearty 
accord with Van Buren on the slavery 
question, he had fought him for so many 
years and had denounced him so unspar- 
ingly as a scheming trimmer and foxy 
trickster that he could not reconcile him- 
self to the thought of establishing political 
fellowship with the Sage of Kinderhook. 
By and by he banished the unpleasant 
features of the Philadelphia convention 
from his recollection and gradually 
adjusted himself to the support of Taylor 
and Fillmore. The warmth of this sup- 
port was somewhat augmented when the 
New York Whigs caused him to be nom- 
inated to an unexpired term in Congress. 
The propriety and expediency of con- 
ferring this honor upon Horace Greeley 
was at the election affirmed by a gratify- 
Ingly decisive majority. 

There was quite a strife for the Vice- 
Presidential nomination. Abbott Law- 
rence, a New England millionaire, was an 
active candidate. His chief if not only 
claim to such mark of distinction was the 
possession of a large-sized "bar'l" which 
he gave the managers to understand could 
be freely tapped as the emergencies of the 
campaign might require. To the credit 




of the convention be it said these dis- 
tinctively commercial advances were re- 
spectfully but firmly rejected. On the 
second ballot the nomination for Vice- 
President was conferred on Millard Fill- 
more of Buffalo, N. Y. He was an ardent 
supporter of Henry Clay, and the conven- 
tion deemed it "good politics" to placate 
the admirers of the eloquent Kentuckian 
by nominating one of their number for 
second place. Fillmore was a much abler 
man than Taylor. Struggling with ad- 
versity in his youth, he forged rapidly to 
the front after he had equipped himself 
for the bar and had served three years 
as member of the New York Legislature. 
Three times he was elected to Congress, 
declining a renomination to a fourth term. 
He was the Whig candidate for Governor 
in 1844 and defeated by Silas Wright. 
In 1847 he was elected State Comptroller. 
Then followed his nomination and election 
to the Vice-Presidency of the United States 
and his subsequent accession to the Presi- 

While a member of Congress, as chair- 
man of the Ways and Means Committee, 
he framed the tariff of 1842. This tariff 
act is popularly assumed to have been 
the product of Henry Clay, but Fillmore 
was its real author. It is interesting to 
note, right here, what were Mr. Fill- 
more's views on the tariff after becoming 
President upon the death of Zachary Tay- 
lor. In his first annual message, dated 
December 2, 1850, President Fillmore 
made this reference to the tariff : 

"A high tariff can never be permanent. 
It will cause dissatisfaction, and will be 
changed. It excludes competition, and 
thereby invites the investment of capital 
in manufactures to such excess that when 
changed it brings distress, bankruptcy and 
ruin upon all who have been misled by 
its faithless protection. What the manu- 
facturer wants is uniformity and per- 
manency, that he may feel a confidence 
that he is not to be ruined by sudden 
changes. But to make a tariff uniform 
and permanent it is not only necessary 

that the laws should not be altered, but 
that the duty should not fluctuate. To 
efi'ect this all duties should be specific 
wherever the nature of the article is such 
as to admit of it. Ad valorem duties 
fluctuate with the price and ofi'er strong 
temptations to fraud and perjury. Spe- 
cific duties, on the contrary, are equal and 
uniform in all ports and at all times, and 
offer a strong inducement to the importer 
to bring the best article, as he pays no 
more duty upon that than upon one of 
inferior quality. I therefore strongly 
recommend a modification of the present 
tariff, which has prostrated some of our 
most important and necessary manufac- 
tures, and that specific duties be imposed 
sufficient to raise the requisite revenue, 
making such discriminations in favor of 
the industrial pursuits of our own coun- 
try as to encourage home production with- 
out excluding foreign competition. It is 
also important that an unfortunate pro- 
vision in the present tariff, which imposes 
a much higher duty upon the raw material 
that enters into our manufactures than 
upon the manufactured article, should be 

The first sentence in this quotation 
must be startling to those who have 
labored under the impression that the ad- 
vocates of a protective tariff in the days 
of Clay, Webster, Greeley and Kelley were 
as rapacious as are the apologists for and 
defenders of the tariff devised by Dingley 
and later on made more extortionate by 
Aldrich and Payne. Ponder over these 
declarations: "A high tariff can never 
be permanent. ... It brings distress, 
bankruptcy and ruin upon all who have 
been misled by its faithless pi'otection." 
And kindly note, also, that there is no 
complaint whatsoever in the Fillmore 
message about the rates in the Walker 
tariff of 1846 being too low. The chief 
contention made by President Fillmore 
was that duties be made specific, instead 
of ad valorem. On this branch of the sub- 
ject there always have been differences of 
opinion among protectionists as well as 
among revenue reformers. 

As already stated, no platform was 
adopted by the convention proper. But 



at a mass meeting held after the conven- 
tion had adjourned a sort of political 
manifesto was promulgated, of which the 
following is a comprehensive epitome: 

"1. Ratifies nomination of Zachary 
Taylor as President and Millard Fillmore 
as Vice-President. 2. Expresses joy at 
finding Mr. Taylor's opinions conservative 
and faithful 'to the great example of for- 
mer days, and to the principles of the 
Constitution as administered by the foun- 
ders.' 3. That General Taylor, in saying 
that, had he voted in 1844, he would have 
voted the Whig ticket, gives us assurance 
. . . that the heart that was with us 
then is with us now. 4. That we look on 
his administration of the Government as 
one conducive of peace, prosperity and 
union. ... 5. That standing, as the 
Whig party does, on the broad and firm 
platform of the Constitution, braced up 
by all its inviolable and sacred guarantees 
and compromises ... we are proud 
to have as the exponent of our opinions 
one . . . who has said . . . 'that 
he will make Washington's administration 
his model.' 6. Is occupied with a brief 
recital of Taylor's military services. 7. 
Asks united, zealous, resolute co-operation 
of all Whigs 'in behalf of our candidate, 
whom calumny cannot reach, and with re- 
spectful demeanor to our adversaries, 
whose candidates have yet to prove their 
claims on the gratitude of the nation.' 

"1. 'I reiterate,' said Taylor, 'what I 
have so often said: I am a Whig. If 
elected, I would not be the mere President 
of a party. ... 2. The power given 
by the Constitution to the executive to in- 
terpose his veto is a high conservative 
power, but in my opinion should never be 
exercised except in cases of clear violation 
of the Constitution, or manifest haste and 
want of consideration by the Congress 
. . . 3. Upon the subject of the tariff, 
the currency, the improvement of our great 
highways, rivers, lakes and harbors, the 
will of the people, as expressed through 
their representatives in Congress, ought 
to be respected and carried out by the 
executive. 4. I sincerely rejoice at the 
prospect of peace. . . . The prin- 
ciples of our Government, as well as its 
true policy, are opposed to the subjugation 
of other nations and the dismemberment 
of other countries by conquest.' " 


After much earnest consultation the 
"Barnburners' " delegation to the Balti- 
more convention and others who were in 
sympathy and accord with them decided 
upon holding a State convention at Utica, 
N. Y., June 22, and inviting thereto dele- 
gates from other States for the purpose 
of definitely determining what course to 
pursue to promote the cause in which they 
had enlisted. Delegates from Massachu- 
setts, Connecticut, Ohio and Wisconsin 
attended this conference and convention. 
After two days of earnest deliberation 
Martin Van Buren was formally nom- 
inated for President and Senator Henry 
Dodge of Wisconsin for Vice-President. 
Senator Dodge was a native of Vincennes, 
Ind., had a good deal to do with Indian 
affairs, served as Territorial Governor of 
Wisconsin, was three times sent to Con- 
gress, elected Governor in 1846 and 
chosen United States Senator in 1848. He 
was "quite a man" and would have added 
much strength to the ticket had he con- 
cluded to "stick." He was in sympathy 
with the Freesoil movement, but believed 
in party "regularity" and had a very high 
opinion of General Cass. These consid- 
erations impelled him to decline the 
proftered honor and to give his support 
to Cass and Butler. Van Buren, on the 
other hand, readily accepted the nomina- 
tion, which acceptance served as notice 
to the country at large and the Democracy 
in particular that the voice of the anti- 
slavery men would be heard and felt at 
the November election. 

This movement grew rapidly in popular 
favor, so much so that the leaders declared 
it to be expedient to convene a much more 
representative body to complete the ticket 
of the Freesoil party. Accordingly such 
a gathering was held at Buffalo, N. Y., 
on the 9th of August. It was largely at- 
tended and had accredited representatives 
from seventeen of the thirty States. 


1 9 1 

Charles Francis Adams of Massachusetts 
presided. John P. Hale of New Hamp- 
shire had ah-eady been nominated for the 
Presidency of the Abolition party. He 
was a United States Senator at the time 
and had won a national reputation. There 
was a strong sentiment in his favor and 
he developed remarkable strength when 
the convention proceeded to a ballot. 
Van Buren's nomination was favored by 
159 delegates and Hale's by 129. Charles 
Francis Adams was by acclamation named 
for Vice-President. Mr. Hale was so de- 
lighted over the platform submitted to 
the convention that immediately after its 
adoption he formally withdrew as the 
Presidential nominee of the Abolitionists 
and throughout the campaign gave earn- 
est support to the Van Buren-Adams 

The platform, unanimously and vocifer- 
ously adopted by the convention, con- 
sisted of nineteen planks, of which 
thirteen related to the slavery question. 
It had evidently been prepared with great 
care. Every sentence in it seems to have 
had painstakmg consideration. Persons 
familiar with the writings of Samuel J. 
Tilden would at once detect in the phrase- 
ology of this pronunciamento the master 
mind of the Sage of Gramercy. Every 
phase of the slavery question was treated 
with sublime courage and absolute fear- 
lessness. In terms that could neither be 
misunderstood nor misinterpreted the 
slave power was notified that concessions 
to it were already too generous and that 
henceforth no more slave territory could 
be created under the forms of law. And 
there wasn't ! 

Epitomized, this document presented to 
the consideration of the American people 
this declaration of principles: 

"Freesoil Platform of 1848.— An elo- 
quent and impassioned appeal, in a three- 
fold preamble and sixteen resolutions, 
against the extension of slavery, from 
which the following are brief extracts : 'A 
common resolve to maintain the rights of 

free labor against the aggressions of the 
slave power, and to secure free soil to a 
free people.' 'We propose no interference 
by Congress with slavery within the limits 
of anv State.' 'It was the settled policy 
of the nation (from 1784 to 1800) not to 
extend, nationalize or encourage . . . 
slavery, and to this policy . . . the 
Government ought to return.' 'Congress 
has no more power to make a slave than 
to make a king.' 'The only safe means of 
preventing the extension of slavery into 
territory now free is to prevent its ex- 
tension into such territory by an act of 
Congress.' 'We accept the issue which 
the slave power has forced upon us; and 
to their demand for more slave States and 
more slave territory, our calm but final 
answer is, no more slave States and no 
more slave territory.' 'There must be no 
more compromises with slavery; if made, 
they must be repealed.' 'We demand 
cheap postage for the people.' 'River and 
harbor improvements . . . are ob- 
jects of national concern.' 'The free grant 
to actual settlers ... of reasonable 
portions of the public lands, under suitable 
limitations, is a wise and just measure of 
public policy.' 'Honor and patriotism re- 
quire the earliest practical payment of the 
public debt.' 'We inscribe on our banner, 
"Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and 
Free Men," and under it we will fight on, 
and fight ever, until a triumphant victory 
shall reward our exertions.' " 

Several other tickets had been placed 
in the field, but after the Buffalo conven- 
tion no attention was bestowed upon 
these offshoots. It soon became apparent 
that the American people were intent on 
making their choice of favorites from the 
three tickets named. The Van Buren 
ticket rapidly gained- in popular support. 
At first the Taylor-Fillmore leaders feared 
that more anti-slavery Whigs than Demo- 
crats might vote the Van Buren ticket, 
but after any number of prominent Demo- 
crats had declared themselves for the 
Buffalo ticket the Taylorites mustered 
courage and gradually assumed an air of 
confidence. In the main the campaign 
was fairly decently conducted. The 
hottest partisan battle was fought in 
Georgia, where Alexander H. Stephens, 



who thirteen years later, in 1861, was 
made Vice-President of the Southern 
Confederacy, led the Taylor forces. 
Stephens was physically diminutive but 
lion-hearted as to courage. During the 
campaign he had a personal encounter 
with Judge Francis Cone of Greensboro. 
The difficulty grew out of a quarrel on 
the Clayton compromise of 1848. Cone 
cut Stephens terribly with a knife, and 
cried: "Now, damn you, retract, or I'll 
cut your throat!" The bleeding, almost 
dying Stephens cried: "Never! Cut!" 
and grasped the swiftly descending knife 
blade in his right hand. That hand never 
again wrote plainly. Few of the wit- 
nesses of the affair, which occurred on 
the piazza of Thompson's Hotel, Atlanta, 
expected him to recover. He did, how- 
ever, in time to make a speech in favor 
of Zachary Taylor for the Presidency, the 
carriage being drawn to the stand by the 
people. This affray doubtless had some 
effect on the vote of Georgia. Stephens 
was dearly beloved by the people of that 
Commonwealth. Georgia was throughout 
the campaign in the doubtful column. 
When the votes were counted Taylor had 
2,742 more than Cass. Quite helpful to 
the Taylorites was the result of the State 
election in Pennsylvania in October. The 
Keystone State had been considered safe 
for Cass, but when the Whig candidate 
for Governor carried it by 305 majority 
Democratic confidence began to waver. 
At the November election Taylor and 
Fillmore were triumphant in Pennsyl- 
vania by a plurality of 14,337 and by a 
majority of 3,074 over both Cass and Van 

Of the popular vote Taylor had 1,360,- 
101; Cass, 1,220,544; Van Buren, 291,263. 
Of the electoral vote Taylor received 163 ; 
Cass, 127; Van Buren, none. Of the fif- 
teen Southern States Taylor carried eight ; 
Cass, seven. There were then just as 
many slave States as free States — thirty 
in all. Of the Northern States Cass car- 

ried eight; Taylor, seven. Every State 
west of Pennsylvania — Ohio, Indiana, Illi- 
nois, Michigan and Wisconsin — went for 
Cass. Down East Cass carried New 
Hampshire and Maine — due to the rela- 
tively large Van Buren vote. Van Buren's 
strength was greatest in New York, 
Massachusetts, and Ohio. In Massachu- 
setts, New York and Vermont Van Buren 
received more votes than Cass. Relatively 
the poorest showing made by Van Buren 
was in New Jersey, where he polled only 
829 votes; in Rhode Island he had 730. 
In the South Van Buren was credited with 
eighty votes in Delaware, 125 in Mary- 
land, and nine in Virginia. The State 
that divided its vote nearest equally was 
Wisconsin, which gave Cass 15,001; Tay- 
lor, 13,747 ; Van Buren, 10,418. 

As to the effect of the election, it may 
be said to have been nil. The only signifi- 
cance about it was the vote cast for Van 
Buren and the platform upon which he 
stood. Not a single slave territory was 
thereafter organized or admitted into the 
Union. But for twelve long years the 
nation experienced the liveliest fight over 
the slavery question that had been wit- 
nessed during its entire existence. As for 
the Whig party — well, it succeeded in 
electing its candidate for the Presidency 
in 1848 by putting forth a negative quan- 
tity, a slaveholder whose only prestige was 
that of having won in the Mexican war, 
which Whigs had all along denounced as 
an outrage and a national disgrace. They 
were unable to control either house of 
Congress, were literally snowed under in 
the next Presidential contest, and saw the 
party go to pieces in 1854. 



For the purpose of organizing for the 
Presidential campaign of 1848 the Indiana 
Democracy met in State convention at 
Indianapolis on historic Jackson Day, the 
8th of January. Hon. J. G. Read of Clark 



1 9 1 

officiated as temporary chairman. A com- 
mittee on permanent orgariization was 
created. This committee consisted of one 
from each of the ten Congressional dis- 
tricts, as follows: 

A. L. Robinson of Vanderburg county, 
J. S. Sullivan of Clark county, S. F. Cov- 
ington, Joseph Leach of Union county, 
Major Z. Tannehill of Bartholomew coun- 
ty, John W. Cox of Morgan, M. L. Roach 
of Parke county, Thomas Smiley of Tip- 
pecanoe county, J. J. Shryock of Fulton 
county, Frank P. Randall of Allen county. 

Through its chairman, A. L. Robinson, 
this committee named the following gen- 
tlemen as permanent officers of the con- 
vention : 

President — Ethan Allen Brown of 
Dearborn county. 

Vice-Presidents — J. F. Dufour of Switz- 
erland county, J. Coates of Fountain, 
Francis Little of Bartholomew, Lot Day 
of St. Joseph, Major Z. Tannehill of 

Secretaries — J. P. Chapman of Marion 
county, Francis King of Wayne, J. B. Hall 
of Dearborn, S. A. Hall of Cass. 

The State Central Committee for this 
year's campaign consisted of Dr. Living- 
ston Dunlap, General David Reynolds, 
Colonel James P. Drake, George A. Chap- 
man, E. N. Skinner, William Sullivan and 
Charles Mayer. 

For the State at Large — A. S. Burnett 
of Floyd county and John U. Pettit of 
Wabash. Contingents: James H. Lane 
of Dearborn county and Isaac C. Elston of 
Montgomery county. 


First — James Lockhart of Vanderburg; 
Dr. William F. Sherrod, Dubois; E. R. 
James, Posey. Contingents : Robert Dale 
Owen, Posey; B. Edmondson, Gibson. 

Second— E. G. English; H. Deputy, Jef- 
ferson; John Carr, Jackson. Contingent: 
J. H. Sullivan. 

Third— F. S. Dufour, Switzerland; 
James P. Milliken, Dearborn; Finley 
Bigger, Rush. Contingent: E. D. Crook- 

Fourth — Samuel E. Perkins, Wayne; 
John S. Reid, Union ; James Elder, Wayne. 
Contingent: James Osborn, Union. 

Fifth — J. P. Chapman, Marion; James 
Blake, Marion. Contingent: F. Hardin, 

Sixth — John R. Jones, Knox; R. W. 
Aiken, Sullivan; P. M. Parks, Morgan. 

Seventh — James M. Gregg, Hendricks; 
William P. Bryant, Parke; C. T. Patter, 
son, Vigo. 

Eighth — Addison M. Crane, Tippe- 
canoe; G. W. Lawson, Fountain; Captain 
Robert H. Milroy, Carroll. Contingent: 
Joseph Ristine, Montgomery. 

Ninth — Gilbert Hathaway, Laporte; 
Samuel A. Hall, Cass. Contingent: John 
Bi'ownfield. St. Joseph. 

Tenth— Frank P. Randall, Allen; Sam- 
uel S. Mickle, Adams. Contingent: Madi- 
son Marsh. 

The importance of naming an excep- 
tionally strong electoral ticket seems to 
have been duly impressed upon the con- 
vention. The gentlemen selected were 
men of high standing and of much more 
than local prominence. For electors for 
the State at large the convention named 
two men, one of whom (Mr. Owen) had 
already served two terms in Congress, and 
a presiding judge (Mr. Chamberlain), 
who later on was elected to Congress in 
1852. Among the district electors were 
several who had also filled important pub- 
lic positions. In its entirety the electoral 
ticket was thus constituted: 


Robert Dale Owen of Posey county. 
Ebenezer M. Chamberlain of Elkhart 


1. Nathaniel Albertson, Harrison county. 

2. Cyrus L. Dunham, Washington. 

3. William M. McCarty, Franklin. 



-19 1 

4. Charles H. Test, Wayne. 

5. James Ritchie, Johnson. 

6. George W. Carr, Lawrence. 

7. James M. Hanna, Clay. 

8. Daniel Mace, Tippecanoe. 

9. Graham N. Fitch, Cass. 
10. Andrew J. Harlan, Grant. 

Heading the electoral ticket, and having 
attained an enviable reputation as a force- 
ful public speaker, Robert Dale Owen 
played an important part in this cam- 
paign. He was the subject of vigorous 
attack by the opposition generally and of 
vindictive denunciation by unscrupulous 
partisan publications. When his critics 
found themselves unable effectively to 
combat his political philosophy, they 
sought to neutralize the force of his argu- 
ment by branding him an "infidel lec- 
turer." These shafts had, however, failed 
utterly to disturb his equanimity. He re- 
called the fact that Thomas Jefferson was 
in his day assailed and maligned in like 
manner and that dismay fell upon the 
heads of his traducers when the illustrious 
author of the Declaration of Independence 
met their accusations with this incisive 
rejoinder and refutation: 

"As to the calumny of Atheism, I am 
so broken to calumnies of every kind, from 
every department of government, Exec- 
utive, Legislative and Judiciary, and from 
every minion of theirs holding office or 
seeking it, that I entirely disregard it. 
. . . It has been so impossible to con- 
tradict all their lies, that I am determined 
to contradict none; for while I should be 
engaged with one, they would publish 
'twenty new ones. 

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been 
preached always as pure as they came 
from His lips, the whole civilized world 
\^ould now have been Christian. 

"To the corruptions of Christianity I 
am indeed opposed ; but not to the genuine 
precepts of Jesus Himself; I am a Chris- 
tian in the only sense He wished any one 
to be; sincerely attached to His doctrines 
in preference to all others; ascribing to 
Himself every human excellence; and be- 
lieving he never claimed any other. 

"The greatest of all reformers of the 
depraved religion of His own country was 

Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is 
really his from the rubbish in which it 
is buried, easily distinguished by its 
lustre from the dross of His biographers, 
and as separable from that as the diamond 
from the dunghill, we have the outlines of 
a system of the most sublime morality 
which has fallen from the lips of man; 
outlines which it is lamentable He did not 
fill up. Epictetus and Epicurus give laws 
for governing ourselves, Jesus a supple- 
ment of the duties and charities we owe 
to others." 

Even a character so gentle as that of 
the revered Abraham Lincoln did not in 
the days of his struggles escape the sting 
of the tongue of vituperation and slander. 
Chagrined over intimations and innu- 
endos that he was indifferent and derelict 
as to the performance of religious service, 
his great mind impelled his gentle heart 
to unbosom itself in this soulful manner: 

"I have never united myself to any 
church because I have found difficulty in 
giving my assent without mental reserva- 
tion to the long, complicated statements 
of Christian doctrine which characterize 
their articles of belief and confessions of 
faith. Whenever any church will inscribe 
over its altar as its sole qualification for 
membership the Savior's condensed state- 
ment of the substance of both law and 
gospel, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor 
as thyself,' that church will I join with 
all my heart and all my soul." 

Note how happily this blends with the 
sentiments expressed by Thomas Jeffer- 

General Cass carried the State by a plu- 
rality of 4,838. The total vote cast was 
152,7,52, of which Cass received 74,745; 
Taylor, 69,907 ; Van Buren, 8,100. 

Though there was a strong Van Buren 
sentiment in Indiana, the nomination of 
General Cass met the approval and appro- 
bation of an overwhelming majority of 
the Democratic party. There were sev- 
eral reasons for this: Cass was person- 
ally very popular in Indiana. He had re- 
peatedly visited the State, and on various 



occasions rendered valuable service to PRESIDENTIAL VOTE OF INDIANA, 

its people. This was particularly so in 1848. 

the adjustment of difficulties with the 

Indians. His counsel with reference to Counties. Cass. 

the construction of public thoroughfares Adams ......... '. '. . .... '398 

was deemed of incalculable value. Then Blackford 231 

Diown 50.^ 

the fact that he was a Westerner and resi- r.oone 916 

dent of an adjoining State weighed heavily ggnto"'""'*''^ ^'^78 

in his favor. But above all else he was Clinton 964 

esteemed as a high-minded gentleman, (■j-g'^vfo,.^ ^'397 

wise legislator and patriotic statesman. Clay 734 

On the slavery question he was in accord cass" ................ 829 

with prevailing public sentiment : con- Dubois 579 

servative. This made him acceptable to Delaware ..... ..... .... 694 

the vast majority of the party. The re- ^f^^^^^ ^IH 

suit of the November election fully cor- Dearhom ...... ...... .. I'soi 

roborated the judgment formed by those Elkhart 1,050 

who in convention so earnestly labored Fayette ............... 765 

for the nomination of General Cass on Floyd 1,154 

., , .,. Fountain 1,343 

the ground of availability. Franklin 1,695 

Among Van Buren's most earnest and oieene ................ 921 

enthusiastic supporters was General John c,ibson 802 

TT /-. i7 TT 1 i u Harrison 1,047 

H. Cravens 01 Ripley county, who was a Hendricks 775 

Whig presidential elector in 1840 and S°^5'"'^, 5^5 

^ ^ Huntington 463 

who represented his district in Congress Henry ; 1,005 

from 1841 to 1843 as a Whig. On account HaSr. ! ! ! ! .' ! ! ! ! ! ! i.' ! 806 

of his pronounced anti-slavery views he Jennings 784 

left the Whig party, supported Van Jl^^loT..'. '.:'.'. '.'.'.: '.'.'.'.'. I'xni 

Buren for the Presidency, and was the Johnson 1,114 

Freesoil candidate for Governor in 1849. jay ................... 392 

In later years he sei-ved with distinction k°ox"^''° 741 

in the war for the Union. Lagrange 636 

^ . _, , ^, . „ , Lawrence 1.031 

Ovid Butler, as Chairman of the Fi'ee- lake 208 

soil Committee, issued the call for a State ^fa^rghan 428 

convention at Indianapolis August 3 for Miami 770 

the purpose of effecting an organization Montgomery'!!!.'!!!!.'!! L547 

and naming delegates to the Buffalo con- Morgan 1,029 

mi. 2.^ IT -n Monroe 1,084 

vention. The same month a Van Buren Martin 497 

paper, called The Freesoil Banner, was JJoble"" 613 

established at Indianapolis by W. B. Greer Owen 953 

and L. Wallace, two young anti-slavery orange !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 961 

men and former Whigs. In view of the Posey 1,226 

after effect of the Van Buren movement Perry '!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 335 

an analvsis of the Presidential vote of {'"tnam 1,300 

., ,. , . .„ Parke 1,319 

Indiana, by counties, will prove quite in- Pulaski 224 

'itriiptivp Porter 401 

structue. j^^pl^^ ggg 









































, 423 
































































































Randolph 787 

Rush 1,392 

Shelby 1,414 

Spencer 471 

Switzerland 1,106 

Scott 447 

Sullivan 1,142 

St. Joseph 667 

Steuben 352 

Tipton 235 

Tippecanoe 1,523 

Union 637 

Vermilion 763 























Vigo 852 

Vanderburg 667 

Washington 1,643 

Warren 460 

Warrick 862 

Wayne 1,432 

Wabash 739 

White 305 

Wells 416 

Whitley 373 

Cass over Taylor— 4,838. 


1 6 






















[Chapter XII.] 



the gospel of amity should be proclaimed 
on all suitable occasions, the writer feels 
assured that the incorporation of this 
lofty sentiment into these pages will be 
pleasing to every reader of this book: 
"In wandering through your mental pleas- 
ure grounds, whenever you come upon an 
ugly intruder of a thought which might 
bloom into some poisonous emotion such 
as fear, envy, hate, woriy, remorse, anger, 
and the like, there is only one right way 
to treat it. Pull it up like a weed; drop 
it upon the rubbish heap as promptly as 
if it were a stinging nettle; and let some 
harmonious thought grow in its place. 
There is no more reckless consumer of all 
kinds of exuberance than the discordant 
thought, and weeding it out saves such an 
astonishing amount of eau de vie where- 
with to water the garden of joy, that with 
it in hand every man may be his own Bur- 

When the Democracy of Indiana assem- 
bled in State convention to nominate can- 
didates for Governor and Lieutenant- 
Governor, to be elected in 1849, Senator 
James Whitcomb, twice elected as Gov- 
ernor, was chosen to preside over the 
assemblage. This was a fitting compli- 
ment to one of the State's really great and 
good men, and gave high promise of wis- 
dom guiding the action of the convention. 

As Vice-Presidents these sturdy Demo- 
crats from the ten districts were chosen: 

y y i ARKED and pronounced as was 

ITL I"! the ill feeling between Senator 
I li/l i ■'^^^^ht and Governor Wright, 
Ht_|_| each of these distinguished In- 

' diana Democrats seemed to 

have been able to accomplish 
his main purpose, at least when 
highest interests were at stake. Doubt- 
less Governor Wright would have been 
delighted to have shortened the Senatorial 
career of Bright ; equally certain it is that 
the latter would have experienced un- 
bounded satisfaction had it been in his 
power to prevent Joseph A. Wright from 
being elevated to the Governorship of In- 

When such rivalries among politicians 
of the same affiliation pass under review 
years after the actors in these dramas 
have passed from earth ; when cogitations 
are indulged in why enmities and hates 
are engendered among men, the thought 
forces itself irresistibly upon the mind 
that after all is done and said strife and 
contention are found to be inseparably 
associated with human efforts. Attempts 
at fathoming the problem why this ap- 
proaches the inevitable must ever prove 
abortive, for wherever the eye may be 
turned, evidence of disharmony is percept- 
ible here and there, if not everywhere. It 
has ever been thus, and unless humanity 
undergoes a radical change, bordering on 
complete transformation, it in all proba- 
bility ever will be thus. 

When men of mature years become in- 
volved in strife and contention, efforts at 
pacification or reconciliation are rarely 
appreciated at full value. But there is 
compensation in the preachment of the 
doctrine of forbearance and of resistance 
to the aggressive spirit of revengefulness. 
Thoroughly imbued with the belief that 

1. Gaines H. Roberts, Warrick county. 

2. John L. Morrison, Washington. 

3. George Berry, Franklin. 

4. George Evans, Henry. 

5. Robert Hankins, Shelby. 

6. Col. Willis A. Gorman, Monroe. 

7. A. D. Billingsley, Putnam. 

8. George H. G. Stackhouse, Tippecanoe. 

9. Lot Day, St. Joseph. 

10. Madison Marsh, Steuben. 



1 6 

Secretaries — W. B. Chase of Lafayette ; 
Dr. E. W. H. Ellis, editor of the Goshen 
Democrat; Colonel William W. Tuley of 
New Albany, and R. D. Logan of Rush- 

Public sentiment had decided before 
the assembling of the convention that 
Joseph A. Wright of Parke county should 
be nominated for Governor. The people 
had faith in him ; the people demanded his 
nomination. In conformity with this de- 
mand Mr. Wright was nominated amidst 
an outburst of enthusiasm that admitted 
of no doubt as to his popularity. The 
nomination for Lieutenant-Governor was 
in like manner conferred upon James H. 
Lane of Dearborn county. 

The management of the campaign for 
Wright and Lane was intrusted to a State 
central committee, which, in point of 
adaptation, fitness and excellence, had not 
been equaled up to that time. The first 
name on the list was Albert G. Porter of 
Indianapolis, who later on served several 
terms in Congress, and who in 1880 was 
elected Governor over Franklin Landers. 
These are the names of the gentlemen con- 
stituting the State Committee for 1849 : 
A. G. Porter, Dr. A. Gall, 

Daniel Reynolds, C. G. Werbe, 

Dr. L. Dunlap, N. Bolton, 

Wm. H. Morrison, Francis King, 
Geo. A. Chapman, Gen. J. P. Drake. 


Dr. E. W. H. Ellis was for years the 
most active and energetic Democrat in 
northern Indiana. He was an able writer 
and a sagacious politician. As such he 
wielded considerable influence. His views 
on the slavery question were very pro- 
nounced and he gave them vigorous ex- 
pression through the columns of his paper, 
the Goshen Democrat, as well as in party 
councils. At conventions and in party 
caucuses he always commanded respect 
and usually had with him a formidable fol- 

Owing to the slow development of the 
northern part of the State and the long 

start had in populating southern Indiana, 
political power was correspondingly feeble 
in the northern tier of counties. Never- 
theless a good deal of attention was given 
the northern part of the State, largely on 
account of the cleverness and native ability 
of the men who were dominant in public 
affairs north of the Wabash. 

It so happened that when the time came 
for nominating a successor to Governor 
Whitcomb, southern Indiana Democrats, 
who did not look with favor upon the 
gubernatorial aspirations of Joseph A. 
Wright and James H. Lane, strong induce- 
ments were held out to Judge Ebenezer M. 
Chamberlain of Goshen to become a candi- 
date for that office. He was an excellent 
man and the Democrats of northern In- 
diana held him in high esteem. Accord- 
ingly they went to the State convention 
with high hopes and large expectations. 
But it did not take them long to ascertain 
that the southern Indianians who induced 
Judge Chamberlain to become a candidate 
were not in position to deliver the goods. 
Joseph A. Wright was an exceptionally 
adroit politician and manipulator. Jim 
Lane soon discovered that there was no 
chance for his nomination for first place, 
and going upon the assumption that a half 
loaf is better than no bread at all, he 
slipped under the wings of the Wright fac- 
tion and gladly accepted second place on 
the ticket. 

When Dr. Ellis returned to his sanctum 
sanctorum at Goshen he took his pen in 
hand and formulated an editorial of a 
column in length in which he unmercifully 
blistered the hides of the southern Indiana 
Democrats who had promised so much and 
did so little to make good their promises 
and assurances. 

Only three or four counties in the entire 
southern part of the State gave any of 
their votes to Judge Chamberlain. Dr. 
Ellis "ripped them wide open," yet consid- 
erately and diplomatically declared in his 
vitriolic pronunciamento that the nominees 



were good men and woi-thy of Democratic 
support. Nothing, he contended, could or 
would be gained by withholding support 
from the ticket made up of Joseph A. 
Wright and James H. Lane. Although Dr. 
Ellis a few years later severed his connec- 
tion with the Democratic party on the 
slavery question, he was too staunch a 
Democrat in 1849 to think of bolting a 
Democratic nomination. So, after all, he 
had his say without tumbling outside the 
breastworks. Wright and Lane were tri- 
umphantly elected. After having served 
his term as Lieutenant-Governor, Jim 
Lane went to Kansas, became a howling 
Freesoiler, secured a seat in the United 
States Senate as a Republican, and for 
some unknown reason committed suicide. 
Dr. Ellis was elected State Auditor by the 
Legislature with the help of Governor 
Wright, but three years later was denied 
a renomination by the Democratic conven- 
tion after the office had been made elective 
by the people. He afterward became a Re- 
publican. Governor Wright himself broke 
with the party in 1862, and in considera- 
tion of a scathing denunciation of his old- 
time associates, was by Governor Morton 
appointed to fill the Jesse D. Bright va- 
cancy in the United States Senate. 

Joseph A. Wright was pre-eminently a 
self-made man. Born at Washington, Pa., 
April 17, 1810, he came with his parents 
to Indiana, a lad of unusual promise. He 
evinced a strong desire for education and 
availed himself of the earliest opportunity 
to gain entrance into the State University 
at Bloomington. He paid his way in that 
institution by doing janitor's work and 
making himself generally useful. To earn 
money for buying books and clothing he 
hauled brick from the brick yard, did odd 
jobs with the trowel, and gathered nuts 
in the woods. In later years he prided 
himself considerably on the sundry allow- 
ances voted him by the Board of Trustees 
for repairs made about the building. 
Toward the close of the year 1828 he had 

equipped himself educationally so as to 
enter the law otfice of Judge Hester as a 
student. Before he was twenty years of 
age he obtained his license to practice law. 
Shortly thereafter he located at Rockville, 
where he hung out his shingle as an attor- 
ney at law. In 1830 he was elected a 
member of the Legislature, in which body 
he earnestly sought to promote the wel- 
fare of his constituents and the people of 
Indiana in general. During the "Tippe- 
canoe and Tyler too" campaign he was 
promoted to the State Senate, and in 1843 
the people of his district sent him to Con- 
gress. His aspirations for re-election 
were frustrated by the success of Edward 
W. McGaughey, who beat him by 171 
votes. His nomination and election to the 
Governorship by a majority of 9,778 over 
so popular a man as John A. Matson was 
a signal triumph, in view of the aggressive 
factional animosity that had been arrayed 
against him. As Governor he did his 
utmost to promote the agricultural inter- 
ests of the State. Largely through his 
efforts the State Agricultural Society was 
formed. In 1852 he was elected president 
of the State Board of Agriculture and 
twice re-elected. He also exerted himself 
to the utmost to establish a safe banking 
system. The State having at a previous 
election declared in favor of a new Con- 
stitution, by a vote of 33,173 for to 28,843 
against, he interested himself earnestly to 
have that mandate executed with a view 
to assuring the framing of an organic law 
that would meet amply the wants and 
needs of this rapidly growing Common- 
wealth. Throughout his career he fur- 
ni.shed unvarying proof of his firm belief 
in and exemplification of Carlyle's creed, 
''Work is the grand cure for all the mala- 
dies and miseries that ever beset mankind 
— honest work which you intend getting 

The campaign made by Mr. Wright was 
largely intellectual. He was an excellent 
mixer. He made himself easily under- 

do? ) 


stood by the people. He never talked over 
their heads. And he always talked sense. 
One point he particularly impressed with 
especial emphasis upon his hearers, and 
that was the importance of electing the 
right sort of men for county commission- 
ers and township trustees. With a twinkle 
in his eye he used to say: "Pick out the 
best man in your county for commissioner ; 
if you have in your community some 
overly ambitious scapegrace who thinks he 
must be cared for, send him to Washing- 
ton — there he'll be lost in the shuffle." 

There were three tickets in the field — 
Democratic, Whig and Freesoil. The 
gubernatorial candidate of the Freesoilers 
was James H. Cravens of Ripley county, 
a former Whig Congressman, who couldn't 
"swallow" Taylor the year before and 
supported Van Buren and Adams. The 
vote in the State stands thus recorded : 
Joseph A. Wright, Democrat. .76,996 

John A. Matson, Whig 67,228 

James H. Cravens, Freesoiler. . 3,018 
FOR LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. H. Lane, Democrat 77,002 

Thomas S. Stanfield, Whig. . .66,385 
John W. Wright, Freesoiler. . . 2,795 
(This, it may be observed, was the last election 
held for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor only 
under the constitution of 1816.) 

It may here be noted that under the old 
Constitution members of Congress were 
in Indiana elected in odd years. This was 
deemed necessary when that Constitution 
was framed and adopted, on account of 
the time required for gathering the re- 
turns and having them duly tabulated and 
certified. Transportation facilities in the 
early days were not what they became 
later on. In case a special session of Con- 
gress were convened, a member of that 
body would have found it exceedingly dif- 
ficult to reach the national capital in 
time to answer the roll call at the opening 
of the session. 

The year 1849 was a propitious one for 
the Indiana Democracy. Besides electing 
its candidates for Governor and Lieu- 
tenant-Governor by decisive majorities, it 
secured a good working majority in the 
Legislature and elected nine of its ten 
nominees for Congress. The only Demo- 
cratic candidate for Congress defeated 
that year was G. F. Conkley, in the Sev- 
enth District, who was beaten by Edward 
W. McGaughey, the same man who dis- 
tanced Joseph A. Wright in a previous 
race for Congressional honors. 

[Chapter XIII.] 



ESSE D. BRIGHT and Joseph G. 

J I Marshall were residents of the 
I same town — historic Madison. 
I Bright was a native of New 
York; Marshall of Kentucky. 
The father of Bright was a 
manufacturer of hats, and a 
man of great force of character; Mar- 
shall's father was a Presbyterian minister 
of distinguished ability. Born in a slave 
State, Marshall was not enamored of the 
in.stitution of slavery; Bright, born in a 
free State, looked upon slavery as being 
entirely justifiable, and in course of time 
himself became a slave owner in Ken- 
tucky, while maintaining a residence in 
Indiana. Both equipped themselves for 
the law, and both dabbled persistently 
and extensively in politics. The coun- 
ty in which these two men lived, 
Jefferson, was politically Whig, yet 
when Bright started out to run for 
an elective office he rarely failed to 
carry the county. His political shrewd- 
ness and his ability to manipulate were 
a great source of strength to him in his 
campaigning and in his aspirations. 
While it is quite true that Marshall was 
several times sent to the Legislature from 
Jefferson county, it is equally true that in 
his larger aspirations he was uniformly 

Religiously, Bright was a Baptist; Mar- 
shall a Presbyterian. To what extent 
they permitted religion to influence their 
action is not a matter of record. Evi- 
dently, however, they were not guided in 
their daily walks of life by the sublime 
doctrines proclaimed in the Sermon from 
the Mount: 

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile 
you and persecute you for righteousness' 

"Ye have heard it said, Love your 
neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say 
unto you, Love your enemies, bless them 
that curse you, do good to them that hate 
you, and pray for them that despitefully 
use you and persecute you. 

"Ye have heard it said. An eye for an 
eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say 
unto you, That ye resist not evil, but who- 
soever shall smite you on the one cheek, 
tuin to him the other also." 

Marshall was twice chosen a member 
of the Legislature, in 1837 and again in 
1840. At the State election in 1843 
Bright was chosen Lieutenant-Governor. 
Albert S. White's teiTn as United States 
Senator was to expire March 3, 1845. The 
Legislature of 1844 — chosen in 1843 — was 
to elect White's successor. The Whigs 
had a majority of ten on joint ballot. 
They nominated Marshall for Senator. 
The Senate was a tie. As Lieutenant- 
Governor and presiding officer. Bright 
gave the casting vote against going into 
an election for Senator. At the next elec- 
tion the Democrats obtained a majority 
of the Legislature and Bright managed to 
capture the coveted prize, securing the 
caucus nomination over Governor Whit- 
comb. In 1846 Marshall was defeated in 
the race for Governor. Eight years later 
substantially a similar condition to that 
of 1844 arose. Much against his wishes 
Marshall was induced to run for Con- 
gress in the New Albany district in 1852. 
He was defeated by Cyrus L. Dunham. 
Governor Whitcomb had been trans- 
ferred from the Governorship to the 
United States Senate. He died in the fall 
of 1852. Governor Wright temporarily 
filled the vacancy by the appointment of 
his personal and political friend, Charles 
W. Cathcart, of Laporte county. When 
the Legislature of 1853 met John Pettit 



19 1 

of Lafayette was on January 11 elected 
to serve during the remainder of Whit- 
comb's term, March' 3, 1855. Bright 
wanted Dr. Graham N. Fitch of Logans- 
port as his colleague. In the Legislative 
caucus the vote stood 54 for Pettit to 46 
for Fitch. The selection of Pettit was a 
victory for Governor Wright and a defeat 
for Senator Bright. At the election of 
1854 a fusion of Whigs, Know-Nothings 
and Freesoilers was effected. By this 
fusion the combined opposition had se- 
cured a majority of 14 on joint ballot. 
The Senate was Democratic by a majority 
of two. Through the intercession of Sen- 
ator Bright and Lieutenant-Governor 
Ashbel P. Willard the Senate refused to 
go into joint session. The fusion mem- 
bers of the Legislature had agreed on 
electing Joseph G. Marshall for United 
States Senator. A joint session being re- 
fused, Marshall again was doomed to dis- 
appointment. Naturally he felt the sting 
of defeat quite keenly. Two years later 
Graham N. Fitch was elected. 

In 1851 Mr. Marshall became deeply in- 
terested in the proposition to sell the 
State's interest in the Madison and In- 
dianapolis Railroad. He took quite an 
active part in the contest for the election 
of members of the Legislature that was 
to take final action on this proposition. 
In the course of a speech on this subject 
Marshall made a statement which Bright, 
who happened to be in attendance at this 
meeting, emphatically denied. Marshall 
reiterated his statement with consider- 
able warmth. This episode resulted in the 
issuance and acceptance of a challenge to 
a duel at Louisville. Before the challenge 
was issued Marshall had purchased a 
bowie-knife with which, according to his 
own statement, he intended to kill Senator 
Bright while going to the postofRce for 
his mail. Fortunately Bright did not go 
for his mail at his usual time, and the 
threatened encounter was thus happily 
averted. Marshall said Bright always 

went armed, so no advantage would have 
been taken had the bowie-knife attack 
been actually made. 

All the preliminaries for the duel at 
Louisville had been arranged. The com- 
batants went by boat on the Ohio. The 
seconds, surgeons, etc., that had been 
chosen on both sides happened to be men 
of good common sense. By judicious 
parleying they managed somehow to effect 
an adjustment, the terms of which very 
properly never were divulged. Whether 
these two eminent antagonists ever be- 
came reconciled to one another nobody 
now living is able to tell. 

W. W. Woollen lived in the same town 
with Bright and Marshall. He knew both 
of them quite well. In his admirable 
"Sketches of Early Indiana" he speaks 
thus of the able man of numerous disap- 
pointments and defeats : 

"Scotch-Irish and cavalier blood mingled 
in the veins of Joseph G. Marshall. Like 
the North of Ireland man, he got all the 
contention out of a thing there was in it; 
and like the cavalier, he was warm- 
hearted, impulsive, and brave. When con- 
tending for a principle be believed to be 
right you would imagine him a born son 
of Carrickf ergus ; when at the fireside, or 
around the social board, he would impress 
you as one born on the banks of the York 
or the James. His father was a Scotch- 
Irishman and his mother a Virginian, so 
his leading characteristics were his by in- 

"Joseph Glass Marshall was born in 
Fayette county, Ky., January 18, 1800. 
His father was a Presbyterian minister, 
and he thoroughly indoctrinated the son 
in the principles of the Scottish Church. 
He was fitted for college at home, enter- 
ing Translyvania University as a junior, 
and graduating from that institution in 
182.3. In 1828 he came to Indiana and 
settled at Madison, where he resided until 
he died. He had studied law in Kentucky, 
and although a young man in a town noted 
for the strength of its bar, he soon ob- 
tained a lucrative practice. Two years 
after coming to Indiana he was elected 
Probate Judge of his county, and dis- 
charged the duties of the office with signal 



ability. When he left the judgeship he 
returned to the bar. In 1836, 1840 and 
1844 he was on the Whig electoral ticket, 
and each time made an active canvass of 
the State. In 1846 he was nominated for 
Governor and was beaten by James Whit- 
comb .S.9o8 votes. In 1849 President Tay- 
lor appointed him Governor of Oregon, 
but he refused the place. Before declin- 
ing, however, he went to Washington and 
personally thanked the President for the 
tender of the oflice. In 1850 he was 
elected Senator from his county, and 
served the legal term. In 1852, much 
against his wishes, he was nominated for 
Congress in his district, and was beaten 
by Cyrus L. Dunham 931 votes. This 
was the last race he made before the 
people. In addition to the offices named, 
he represented his county several times in 
the lower branch of the State Legislature. 

"Mr. Marshall had an ambition to go 
to the United States Senate, but his ambi- 
tion was never gratified. In the Legisla- 
ture of 1844 the Whigs had ten majority 
on joint ballot. They nominated him for 
the Senate, but the Democrats refused to 
go into an election. Each party had 
twenty-five members in the Senate, and 
Jesse D. Bright, then Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor, gave the casting vote against going 
into the election. In 1845 the Democrats 
carried the Legislature, and elected Mr. 
Bright to the Senate, his vote being 80, 
and Mr. Marshall's 66. His defeat the 
year before incensed him against Mr. 
Bright, and ever afterward he hated him. 

"In the Legislature of 1854 the People's, 
or anti-Nebraska party, had a majority of 
fourteen on joint ballot, but the Demo- 
crats, having two majority in the Senate, 
prevented the election of a Senator. Mr. 
Marshall was the nominee of the dominant 
party, and had an election been held he 
would have been chosen. Thus it will be 
seen that he was twice kept from going 
to the Senate by the refusal of the Demo- 
crats to perform a legal duty. 

"Mr. Marshall was at Indianapolis most 
of the time during the session of the Leg- 
islature of 1854-5, and while there con- 
tracted a deep cold. The cold settled on 
his lungs and soon became alarming. 
Early in the spring of 1855 he started on 
a Southern trip, in hopes of regaining his 
health. When he reached Louisville, be- 
ing too sick to proceed farther, he took 

to his bed, and, on the 8th of April, 1855, 
died. His remains were brought to Madi- 
son and there interred. 

"Indiana never had the equal of Mr. 
Marshall in breadth and strength of in- 
tellect. Neither did she ever have his 
equal in ability to stir the passions and 
sway the feelings of the people. She has 
had men of greater culture and of more 
general information, but in those qualities 
which enable the orator to melt the hearts 
and fire the passions of his auditors he 
was without a peer. He was called the 
"Sleeping Lion," and, when fully aroused, 
he was a lion indeed. 

"On such occasions his oratory was like 
the hurricane that sweeps everything be- 
fore it. Ordinarily he did not show his 
power, but when engaged in a case that 
enlisted his feelings and his conscience his 
words were like hot shot from the can- 
non's mouth. 

"Colonel Abram W. Hendricks, in a re- 
cent address, thus speaks of Mr. Marshall : 
'He was one of the most transcendently 
powerful advocates that have figured at 
the Indiana bar. His intellect was colossal. 
He seemed to know the law by intuition. 
His logic was surrounded by a glowing 
atmosphere of passion. He could sweep 
through his subject like a tempest or 
crush through it like an avalanche.' 
Colonel Hendricks had practice at the bar 
with him for many years, and knew 
whereof he spoke. 

"Mr. Marshall was very careless of his 
dress. He didn't care whether his coat 
fitted him or not, or whether the bow on 
his neck-stock was under his ear or his 
chin. He usually wore low shoes, and 
there was often quite a distance between 
his shoetops and the bottom of his panta- 
loons. He carried his papers in his hat 
instead of his pockets, and wore his hat 
pulled low down upon his head. He had 
a great big head, thickly covered with 
sandy hair. His forehead, mouth and 
nose were large and prominent. His eyes 
were a light blue, and were the least ex- 
pressive of his features. He stood over 
six feet high. His body was not sym- 
metrical, being from his shoulders to his 
hips the same in size. It was his 
head and face that told you the manner 
of man he was. These were magnificent, 
and his uncouth form and careless dress 
served to show them to the best advantage. 
Had he gone to the Senate, as he should 


19 1 

have done, he would have made a reputa- 
tion equal to any one in the land. He had 
the ability to shine anywhere and would 
not have suffered by comparison with the 
ablest men in that body." 

With reference to the refusal of the 
State Senate on two occasions to agree 
to go into joint session for the purpose of 
electing a United States Senator, it may 
be stated that in those days State Legis- 
latures were privileged to do as they 
pleased about such matters. There was 

no federal law governing the election of 
United States Senators. On another page 
David Turpie relates, intelligently and 
comprehensively, how Congress finally 
came to pass a law prescribing when and 
how United States Senators were to be 
chosen by State Legislatures. This legis- 
lative enactment has since been superseded 
by the adoption of an amendment to the 
Federal Constitution making United 
States Senators elective by direct vote of 
the people. 


[Chapter XIV.] 

DURING DECADE (1843 TO 1853) 

IHE census of 1840, revealing 
another extraordinary increase 
of population, gave Indiana 
three additional Congressmen, 
raising the State's apportion- 
ment from seven to ten. Under 
this apportionment the follow- 
ing named gentlemen were chosen for the 
Twentv-eighth Congress— 1843 to 1845: 

1. Robert Dale Owen. 

2. Thomas J. Henley. 

3. Thomas Smith. 

4. Caleb B. Smith. 

5. William J. Brown. 

6. John W. Davis. 

7. Joseph A. Wright. 

8. John Pettit. 

9. Samuel C. Sample. 
10. Andrew Kennedy. 

Thomas Jefferson Henley was the first 
native of Indiana to be elected to Con- 
gress. He was born in 1810 ; attended the 
State University at Bloomington; was 
State Representative from 1832 to 1842, 
and Speaker of the House one term; 
elected to Congress as a Democrat for 
three successive terms (1843 to 1849) ; 
moved to California in 1849 and engaged 
in banking in San Francisco. Was a mem- 
ber of the first California Legislature; 
Superintendent of Indian affairs of Cali- 
fornia for seven years, and wound up his 
official career with the po.stmastership of 
San Francisco. 

Caleb Blood Smith was born in Boston, 
Mass., April 16, 1808; moved with his 
parents to Ohio in 1814; was graduated 
from the Miami University; studied law, 
was admitted to the bar, and began prac- 
tice in Connersville, Ind. ; founded and 
edited the Indiana Sentinel in 1832; mem- 
ber of the State House of Representatives 
1833-1836, and served as Speaker in 1836; 
elected to the Twenty-eighth, Twenty- 

ninth and Thirtieth Congresses (March 4, 
1843-March 3, 1849) ; presidential elector 
in 1840; moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, and 
practiced law: presidential elector on the 
Fremont ticket in 1856; President of the 
Republican National Convention of 1860; 
Secretary of the Interior under President 
Lincoln March 5, 1861, to January 1, 
1863; resigned to become judge for the 
District of Indiana. Died in Indianapolis 
January 7, 1864. 

William J. Brown was for years one of 
Indiana's most influential politicians — 
adroit, alert, sagacious and courageous. 
He was born in Kentucky November 22, 
1805; in 1821 moved to Indiana; member 
of the State Legislature and Secretary of 
State for Indiana; elected as a Democrat 
to the Twenty-eighth Congress (March 4, 
1843-March 3, 1845) ; Second Assistant 
Postmaster General, 1845-1849; again 
elected to (the Thirty-first) Congress 
(March 4, 1849-March 3, 1851) ; editor 
of the Indiana Sentinel and State Libra- 
rian of Indiana; special agent of the 
Postoflice Department for Indiana and 
Illinois. Died near Indianapolis, March 
18, 1857. 

Samuel C. Sample was born in Mary- 
land; moved to Indiana and settled in 
South Bend; elected as a Whig to Con- 
gress for one term, from 1843 to 1845. 

(Robert Dale Owen, Thomas Smith, 
John W. Davis, Joseph A. Wright, John 
Pettit and Andrew Kennedy are duly men- 
tioned elsewhere.) 

A notably able delegation was chosen 
by the people of Indiana to represent them 
in the Twenty-ninth Congress, from 1845 
to 1847: 

1. Robert Dale Owen. 

2. Thomas J. Henley. 

3. Thomas Smith. 

4. Caleb B. Smith. 



5. William W. Wick. 

6. John W. Davis. 

7. Edward W. McGaughey. 

8. John Pettit. 

9. Charles W. Cathcart. 
10. Andrew Kennedy. 

Edward W. McGaughey was twice 
elected to Congress, from 1845 to 1847, 
and from 1849 to 1851. He was a cam- 
paigner of considerable resourcefulness 
and ingenuity. 

Charles W. Cathcart was twice elected 
to Congress from the Laporte district. 
Upon the death of Senator James Whit- 
comb, October 4, 1852, Governor Wright 
appointed Mr. Cathcart to serve as Whit- 
comb's successor until the Legislature 
would effect an election. Cathcart took 
his seat December 6, 1852, and held it un- 
til "relieved" by John Pettit, January 18, 
1853. Thus the Whitcomb seat in the 
Senate had three different occupants dur- 
ing the six-year term. 

In the Thirtieth Congress (1847 to 
1849) Indiana was represented by these 
gentlemen : 

1. Elisha Embree. 

2. Thomas J. Henley. 

3. John L. Robinson. 

4. Caleb B. Smith. 

5. William W. Wick. 

6. George C. Dunn. 

7. Richard W. Thompson. 

8. John Pettit. 

9. Charles W. Cathcart. 
10. William Rockhill. 

New names in this list are those of 
Elisha Embree, John L. Robinson, Geo. G. 
Dunn and William Rockhill. 

Elisha Embree was a native of Lincoln 
county, Kentucky ; came with his father to 
Indiana in 1811; practiced law at Prince- 
ton; served as circuit judge from 1835 to 
1845; elected to Congress as a Whig; de- 
feated as candidate for re-election. Died 
at Princeton, February 28, 1863. 

John L. Robinson was conspicuous in 
Indiana politics for twenty years. Born 
in Mason county, Kentucky, May 3, 1814, 
he came to Indiana when eighteen years of 
age, locating in Rush county, where he 

made himself useful in a country store. 
By and by he engaged in business for him- 
self, but success did not crown his efforts. 
His mind concerned itself more with the 
study of human nature and the current of 
events than with figuring out a reasonable 
profit on the commodities usually sold in 
a country store. And in those days a coun- 
try store was a great place for expound- 
ing doctrines, cultivating public sentiment 
and espousing various causes. John L. 
Robinson was a master hand at this. It 
didn't take long for him to establish a lo- 
cal reputation for political sagacity and 
shrewdness. When but twenty-six years 
of age his name was placed on the Van 
Buren electoral ticket in 1840. He was no 
mere figurehead in this assignment. He 
went on the stump and acquitted himself 
so masterfully as to astonish both friend 
and foe. Though the party with which he 
affiliated was overwhelmingly defeated in 
that campaign, John L. Robinson had an 
abiding faith that a turn in affairs po- 
litical was but a question of time. And he 
was right about this. Two years after the 
defeat just narrated he was triumphantly 
elected clerk of Rush county. Before he 
had completed his second term he was 
elected to Congress and twice re-elected 
thereafter. Upon the accession of Frank- 
lin Pierce to the Presidency, Robinson was 
appointed United States Marshal of In- 
diana. In this position he was enabled to 
wield considerable influence throughout 
the State. And he availed himself of it to 
the utmost. He was closely allied with 
Senator Bright and proved himself a most 
efficient lieutenant to that adroit political 
chieftain, who in turn greatly appreciated 
the services rendered. In terms of affec- 
tion. Bright spoke of Robinson as "a very 
brother." Bright's friendship for Robin- 
son was put to a severe test when the lat- 
ter got the notion into his head that he 
wanted to be Governor of Indiana. An- 
other dear friend of Bright's, Ashbel P. 
Willard, nursed a similar ambition. The 
matter was finally adjusted to the satis- 




faction of all concerned by an agreement 
that Bright should keep hands off and let 
Willard and Robinson fight it out between 
themselves. They did, and Willard won. 
Robinson had his reward in being reap- 
pointed to the United States marshalship, 
which position he retained up to the time 
of his death at his home in Rushville, 
March 21, 1860. 

One who knew Mr. Robiifson intimate- 
ly, personally and politically, thus summed 
up his character: "Of all the public men 
I ever knew, he was farthest removed 
from the time-server and the demagogue. 
He despised political intrigue, chicanery, 
dissimulation, tergiversation, untruth and 
injustice, and held with Jefferson that 'an 
honest heart is the first blessing, a know- 
ing head is the second.' . . . His 
marked decision of character, his clear 
judgment, his unselfish devotion to the 
popular cause, his unfaltering faith in the 
masses of his party, his pre-eminent abil- 
ities as the advocate and defender of pop- 
ular rights, combined to make him, as ac- 
knowledgedly he was, the heart and head 
leader of the Democracy of Indiana." 

George G. Dunn was born in Kentucky 
in 1813; moved to Indiana; admitted to 
the bar and practiced in Bedford; was 
elected prosecuting attorney, and in that 
capacity proved himself a terror to evil- 
doers and criminals. Served in both 
Houses of the Legislature and was at two 
different times elected to Congress — first 
as a Whig and later on as a sort of com- 
bination candidate. As the product of po- 
litical mongrelism he did very much as he 
pleased, supremely indifferent as to 
whether school kept or not. He was a 
strong man, and was at one time in part- 
nership with Richard W. Thompson. 
Died at Bedford, September 24, 1857. 

William Rockhill was a native of New 
Jersey, where he was born February 10, 
1793. Had a limited education. Located 
at Fort Wayne, and was elected a member 

of the Thirtieth Congress. He served but 
one term. Died at Fort Wayne, January 
15, 1865. 

Of the Indiana delegation to the Thirty- 
first Congress (1849 to 1851) all but one 
were Democrats. The solitary exception 
was Edward W. McGaughey. It was a 
strong delegation and consisted of these 
widely-known gentlemen : 

1. Nathaniel Albertson. 

2. Cyrus L. Dunham. 

3. John L. Robinson. 

4. George W. Julian. 

5. William J. Brown. 

6. Willis A. Gorman. 

7. Edward W. McGaughey. 

8. Joseph E. McDonald. 

9. Graham N. Fitch. 
10. Andrew J. Harlan. 

Nathaniel Albertson was born in Vir- 
ginia, moved to Greenville, Ind., and was 
elected as a Democrat to Congress. Served 
but one term. 

A truly remarkable man was Cyrus L. 
Dunham. Briefly told, his record shows 
him to have been born at Dryden, Tomp- 
kins county. New York, January 16, 1817. 
He was distinctively self-educated. Upon 
his removal to Indiana he located at Salem, 
Washington county, where he studied law 
and in course of time was admitted to the 
bar. He engaged in agricultural pursuits 
and was made prosecuting attorney of the 
circuit court, in which position he distin- 
guished himself by his absolute fearles.s- 
ness. He established quite a reputation as 
a criminal lawyer and became famous as 
a public speaker of unusual power and 
eloquence. In 1846 he was elected a mem- 
ber of the Legislature and re-elected the 
year following. While serving in this ca- 
pacity he became quite active in support 
of a bill to authorize the holding of a con- 
vention to frame a new State Constitu- 
tion. In 1848 he was a Cass and Butler 
elector. The next year he was nominated 
for Congress by the Democracy of the 
second district and triumphantly elected 
over William McKee Dunn by a majority 
of 485. Two years later he was re-elected 


19 16 

by a majority of 963 over Roger Martin. 
In 1852 he defeated Joseph G. Marshall, 
one of the ablest and most highly esteemed 
men in the State, by a majority of 931. 
when Know-Nothingism caused a sort of 
political dementia in 1853 and 1854, Dun- 
ham made his fourth race, his competitor 
being George G. Dunn, and was beaten by 
1,660 votes. This ended Dunham's Con- 
gressional career. When Daniel McClure 
resigned as Secretary of State, Governor 
Willard appointed Mr. Dunham to fill out 
the unexpired term, ending the latter part 
of 1860. It was in the early part of that 
year that Mr. Dunham conceived the idea 
of competing with Thomas A. Hendricks 
for the nomination for Governor. Dun- 
ham was a supporter of the Buchanan ad- 
ministration, while the great body of the 
Indiana Democracy upheld Stephen A. 
Douglas in the Kansas-Nebraska fight. It 
soon became apparent to Mr. Dunham that 
the Buchanan-Bright faction was in a 
hopeless minority. Gracefully he accepted 
the situation and in a singularly eloquent 
speech he moved the unanimous nomina- 
tion of Thomas A. Hendricks. 

Soon after the breaking out of the civil 
war Cyrus L. Dunham organized the Fif- 
tieth Regiment Indiana Volunteers and 
took it to the front. After serving about 
a year, faithfully and heroically fighting 
for his country, ill-health compelled him to 
resign and retire from the service. Upon 
his return from the field he located in New 
Albany and resumed the practice of law. 
In 1864 he was elected to the Legislature 
and took a leading part in the proceedings 
of that body. In 1871 he was elected 
judge of the Floyd and Clark Circuit 
Court. While holding this office he re- 
moved to Jeffersonville, remaining a resi- 
dent thereof until death ended his event- 
ful career, November 21, 1877. 

One of the most remarkable men sent to 
Congress from Indiana was George Wash- 
ington Julian. He was the second native 
Indianian to be elected to Congress. In 
his biography it is stated that he was born 

near Center\nlle, Ind., May 5, 1817; at- 
tended the common schools; studied law 
and was admitted to the bar in 1840 ; mem- 
ber of the State House of Representatives 
in 1845; delegate in the Buffalo Freesoil 
convention, and Van Buren elector in 
1848 ; candidate for Vice-President on the 
Freesoil ticket in 1852; delegate to the 
National Republican Convention in Pitts- 
burgh in 1856; elected as a Freesoiler to 
the Thirty-first Congress (March 4, 1849- 
March 3, 1851) ; elected as a Republican 
to the Thirty-seventh, Thirty-eighth, Thir- 
ty-ninth, Fortieth and Forty-first Con- 
gresses (March 4, 1861-March 3; 1871) ; 
supported Tilden and Hendricks in 1876; 
appointed by President Cleveland Sur- 
veyor-General of New Mexico December 
13, 1886, and served four years. Died in 
Irvington, a suburb of Indianapolis, July 
7, 1899. 

Willis A. Gorman was born near Flem- 
ingsburg, Ky., January 12, 1816; pursued 
an academic course; studied law, was ad- 
mitted to the bar in 1835, and began prac- 
tice in Bloomington, Ind. ; Clerk of the In- 
diana Senate 1837-1838; Major and 
Colonel of Indiana Volunteers in the Mex- 
ican war; elected as a Democrat to the 
Thirty-first and Thirty-second Congresses 
(March 4, 1849-March 3, 1853) ; Terri- 
torial Governor of Minnesota 1853-1857; 
delegate to the Constitutional Convention 
of Minnesota in 1857 ; practiced law in St. 
Paul, Minn., 1857-1861 ; entered the Union 
army; Colonel First Minnesota Infantry 
April 29, 1861 ; Brigadier-General of Vol- 
unteers September 7, 1861; mustered out 
May 4, 1864; elected city attorney of St. 
Paul in 1869. Died in St. Paul, Minn., 
May 20, 1876. 

Joseph Ewing McDonald became dis- 
tinguished in his adopted State as one of 
its ablest lawyers, most sagacious and 
courageous politicians, and a statesman of 
the highest type. Born in Butler county, 
Ohio, August 29, 1819; moved with his 
mother to Indiana in 1826 ; apprenticed to 
the saddler's trade in Lafayette, Ind.; at- 



tended Wabash College, Crawfordsville, 
Ind., but did not graduate; studied law, 
was admitted to the bar in 1843, and com- 
menced practice in Crawfordsville ; Prose- 
cuting Attorney 1843-1847 ; elected to the 
Thirty-first Congress (March 4, 1849- 
March 3, 1851) ; elected Attorney-General 
of Indiana in 1856 and re-elected in 1858 ; 
moved to Indianapolis in 1859 ; unsuccess- 
ful candidate for Governor of Indiana in 
1864; elected to the United States Senate, 
and served from March 4, 1875, to March 
3, 1881. Died in Indianapolis, June 21, 

A most remarkable career had Andrew 
Jackson Harlan, who was born near Wil- 
mington, Clinton county, Ohio, March 29, 
1815; attended the public schools; studied 
law, and was admitted to the bar; moved 
to Marion, Ind.; Clerk of the Indiana 
House of Representatives in 1842 and a 
member 1846-1848 ; elected &s a Democrat 
to the Thirty-first Congress (March 4, 
1849-March 3, 1851) ; re-elected to the 
Thirty-third Congress (March 4, 1853- 
March 3, 1855) ; moved to Dakota Terri- 
tory in 1861; Member of the Territorial 
Legislature in 1861, and served as Speak- 
er; driven from the Territory by the In- 
dians and settled in Savannah, Mo., and 
resumed the practice of law; member of 
the Missouri Legislature and served three 
years as Speaker; moved to Wakeeney, 
Kan., in 1883; postmaster of Wakeeney 
four years ; removed to Savannah, Mo., in 
1892. Died in Savannah, Mo., May 19, 

The last delegation to be sent to Wash- 
ington under the census of 1840 and the 
apportionment made thereunder was a 
distinguished and influential one in the 
Thirty-second Congress (1851 to 1853). 
It was composed of — 

Daniel Mace. 
Graham N. Fitch. 
Samuel Brenton. 

James Lockhart. 
Cyrus L. Dunham. 
John L. Robinson. 
Samuel W. Parker. 
Thomas A. Hendricks. 
Willis A. Gorman. 
John G. Davis. 

James Lockhart was born in Auburn, 
N. Y., February 13, 1806; moved to In- 
diana in 1832; studied law, was admitted 
to the bar and commenced practice in 
Evansville in 1834 ; Prosecuting Attorney 
of Vanderburg county 1841-1842; Judge 
of the Fourth Judicial District 1845-1851 ; 
Delegate to the State Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1850 ; elected as a Democrat to 
the Thirty-second Congress (March 4, 
1851-March 3, 1853) ; re-elected to the 
Thirty-fifth Congress, but died before the 
assembling of the Congress in Evansville, 
September 7, 1857. 

Samuel W. Parker was born in Jeffer- 
son county, New York, September 9, 1805 ; 
was graduated from Miami University, 
Ohio, in 1828; studied law, was admitted 
to the bar, and began practice in Conners- 
ville, Ind. ; held several local offices ; mem- 
ber of the State House of Representatives 
1836-1841; State's Attorney for two 
years ; elected as a Whig to the Thirty-sec- 
ond and Thirty-third Congresses (March 
4, 1851-March 3, 1855) ; Presidential 
Elector 1844-1856. 

Thomas A. Hendricks was born near 
Zanesville, Ohio, September 7, 1819; 
moved with his parents to Madison, Ind., 
then to Shelby county in 1832 ; pursued 
classical studies and was graduated from 
South Hanover College in 1841 ; studied 
law in Chambersburg, Pa.; was admitted 
to the bar in 1843, and began practice in 
Shelbyville, Ind. ; State Representative in 
1848 and a State Senator in 1849; member 
of the State Constitutional Convention of 
1851 ; elected as a Democrat to the Thirty- 
second and Thirty-third Congresses 
(March 4, 1851-March 3, 1855) ; Commis- 
sioner of General Land Office 1855-1859; 
unsuccessful Democratic candidate for 
Governor in 1860; moved to Indianapolis 
in 1860; elected United States Senator, 
and served from March 4, 1863, to March 


3, 1869; elected Governor in 1872; elected 
Vice-President on the Tilden ticket in 
1876, but counted out by the Electoral 
Commission of 1877 ; elected Vice-Presi- 
dent on the Democratic ticket in 1884. 
Died in Indianapolis, November 25, 1885. 
Daniel Mace was born in Pickaway 
county, Ohio, September 5, 1811 ; attended 
the public schools; studied law, was ad- 
mitted to the bar, and commenced prac- 
tice in Lafayette, Ind. ; member of the 
State House of Representatives in 1836; 
Clerk of the State House of Representa- 
tives in 1837 ; United States Attorney for 
Indiana 1849-1853; elected as a Democrat 
to the Thirty-second and Thirty-third 
Congresses (March 4, 1851-March 3, 
1855) ; re-elected as a Republican to the 
Thirty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1855- 
March 3, 1857) ; appointed postmaster of 
Lafayette by President Lincoln. Died in 
Lafayette, July 26, 1867. 

Samuel Brenton was born in Gallatin 
county, Kentucky, November 22, 1810; 
minister of the gospel 1830-1848 ; suffered 
a paralytic stroke in 1848 and compelled 
to abandon the ministry ; appointed Regis- 
trar of the Land Office in Fort Wayne, 
Ind., 1848 ; elected as a Whig to the Thir- 
ty-second Congress (March 4, 1851-March 
3, 1853) ; elected as a Republican to the 
Thirty-fourth and Thirty-fifth Congresses 
and served from March 4, 1855, until his 
death in Fort Wayne, March 29, 1857. 
His second Congressional race was made 
against Congressman Ebenezer M. Cham- 
berlain, of Goshen, who was strongly 
opposed to the repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise, but nevertheless defeated as a 
candidate for re-election. A fusion of the 
Know-Nothings and anti-slavery men 
proved too strong to be overcome by Judge 
Chamberlain. " 

[CHAriEK X\\l 


NDER the Constitution of 1816 
Governor and Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor only were elected by the 
people. Other State officers 
were chosen by the Legislature. 
Up to 1853 these several offi- 
ces were filled by the gentle- 
men named under their respective official 
titles • 


Robert A. New from 1816 to 1825 

William W. Wick, .from 1825 to 1829 
James Morrison . . . from 1829 to 1833 
William Sheets .. .from 1833 to 1837 
William J. Brown, .from 1837 to 1841 
William Sheets .. . .from 1841 to 1845 
John H. Thompson. from 1845 to 1849 

Charles H. Test from 1849 to 1853 

William H. Lilley. .from 1816 to 1828 
Benjamin I. Blythe.from 1828 to 1829 

Morris Morris from 1829 to 1844 

Horatio J. Harris, .from 1844 to 1847 
Douglas Maguire . .from 1847 to 1850 
Erastus W.H. Ellis. from 1850 to 1853 

Daniel C. Lane. . .from 1816 to 1823 

Samuel Merrill from 1823 to 1835 

Nathan B. Palmer. from 1835 to 1841 
George H. Dunn, .from 1841 to 1844 

Royal Mayhew from 1844 to 1847 

Samuel Hannah. . . from 1847 to 1850 

•James P. Drake. . .from 1850 to 1853 


Isaac Blackford . . .from 1817 to 1850 

(One of the judges.) 
Horace E. Carter, .from 1852 to 1853 



James Scott from 1816 to 1831 

John Johnson from 1816 to 1817 

Jesse L. Holman. . .from 1816 to 1831 
Isaac Blackford . . .from 1817 to 1853 
Stephen C. Stephens.. 

from 1831 to 1836 
John T. McKinney. from 1831 to 1837 

Charles Dewey from 1836 to 1847 

Jeremiah Sullivan, .from 1837 to 1846 
Samuel E. Perkins. from 1846 to 1865 
Thomas L. Smith, .from 1847 to 1853 

The last State Auditor chosen by the 
Legislature, under the 1816 constitution, 
was Dr. Erastus W. H. Ellis, for many 
years editor and publisher of the Goshen 
Democrat. He was one of the truly able 
men of the State who deserved all he ever 
got from the party which he served so 
ably for a quarter of a century. He first 
located with his father at Mishawaka, 
then moved to South Bend, and from there 
to Elkhart. This was in 1837. In Janu- 
ary, 1839, he was induced by the owners 
of the Democrat to become its editor at a 
salary of $200 a year and board, which 
amounted to two dollars a week. The cir- 
culation of the Democrat then was about 
400. During the Van Buren campaign in 
1840 Dr. Ellis conducted a campaign pa- 
per called the Kinderhook Dutchman. It 
had a circulation of 1,200. He also issued 
the St. Joseph County Democrat during 
the Van Buren campaign. In August, 
1841, he was elected Auditor of Elkhart 
county and re-elected in 1846. This 
proved quite helpful to him in his news- 
paper career. He continued to audit and 
edit until January, 1850, when the Legis- 
lature elected him to the more lucrative 
position of State Auditor. During his 
term of office he, in connection with John 
S. Spann, established a weekly paper 
called The Indiana Statesman. It attained 
a circulation of 2,000 and lived two years. 
By reason of his pronounced anti-slavery 
extension views the Bright forces defeated 
him in convention when he sought a re- 
nomination for the office of State Auditor. 
In 1855 Dr. Ellis severed his connection 
with the Democratic party. He joined the 
newly organized anti-slavery party, was 


19 16 

nominated for State Auditor in 1856, and 
defeated with the rest of the ticket. For 
a while he edited a campaign paper called 
We, the People. It had a circulation of 
7,000. He filled several minor positions 
under State authority, became very poor 
and returned, penniless, to Goshen, where 
he was installed as editor of the Goshen 
Times. In 1858 he was again elected Au- 
ditor of Elkhart county and re-elected in 
1862. By Governor Morton he was ap- 
pointed a member of the Peace Commis- 
sion that was to avert war between the 
North and South. He served as Draft 
Commissioner and assisted in organizing 
troops for the Union army. Dr. Ellis was 
married three times and had an interest- 
ing family of children. He died at his 
home in Goshen October 10, 1876; was at 
the time serving as postmaster of that in- 
viting little city. 


Under the Constitution of 1816 the 
Judges of the Supreme Court were ap- 
pointed by the Governor, such appoint- 
ment being subject to the approval of the 
Senate. The appointments for the first 
bench were made by Governor Jennings, 
whose choice fell upon James Scott, John 
Johnson and Jesse L. Holman. The fol- 
lowing year he named as Johnson's suc- 
cessor Isaac Blackford,- who served con- 
tinuously from 1817 to 1853 — thirty-six 
years in all. This is without a parallel in 
the history of the State. His record dur- 
ing all these eventful years entitled him 
fully to every word said in commendation 
of his great work by a writer who knew 
him well, William Wesley Woollen : 


Thirty-Six Years On the Supreme Bench. 

"Isaac Blackford, for thirty-five years 
a judge of the Supreme Court of Indiana, 
was born at Bound Brook, Somerset 
county, N. J., November 6, 1786. When 
sixteen years old he entered Princeton 
College, from which, four years after- 

ward, he graduated with honor. He then 
commenced the study of the law in the 
office of Colonel George McDonald, where 
he remained a year, and then entered the 
office of Gabriel Ford, where he continued 
his legal studies. In 1810 he received his 
license, and two years afterward left New 
Jersey and came to Dayton, Ohio. He re- 
mained there but a short time, and then 
came to Indiana. He stopped at Brook- 
ville a while, and then went to Salem and 
located. On the organization of Washing- 
ton county, in 1813, he was chosen its 
first Clerk and Recorder. The next year 
Mr. Blackford was elected Clerk of the 
Territorial Legislature, which office he re- 
signed on being appointed Judge of the 
First Judicial Circuit. He then removed 
to Vincennes, and in the fall of 1815 re- 
signed the judgeship and opened a law 
office. The next year, 1816, he was elected 
a representative from the county of Knox 
to the first I^egislature under the State 
government. There were many men in 
that body who afterward became distin- 
guished in the history of Indiana, among 
them James Noble, Amos Lane, John 
Dumont, Williamson Dunn, Davis Floyd, 
Samuel Milroy and Ratlifi" Boon; but even 
at that early day Judge Blackford's repu- 
tation for judicial fairness was so well es- 
tablished that he was chosen Speaker 
without a contest. The next year Gov- 
ernor Jennings appointed him a judge of 
the Supreme Court, a position he graced 
and honored for the next thirty-five years. 

"In 1853, his term as Supreme Judge 
having expired, he opened an office at In- 
dianapolis for the practice of law. He 
had been so long on the bench that he 
was ill at ease when he went into court 
with a case. His eft'ort to get into prac- 
tice was not successful, and in a short 
time he measurably abandoned it. 

"Judge Blackford was not at home at 
the bar, and he longed to be again upon 
the bench. The opportunity soon came. 
In 1855, on the organization of the Court 
of Claims at Washington, President Pierce 
appointed him one of its judges. He held 
this office until his death, December 31, 
1859. He discharged its duties in a way 
that added luster to a name already illus- 
trious, and died the best known and most 
eminent jurist Indiana has ever produced. 

"When Judge Blackford's death became 
known at Washington a meeting of the 



18 16-1 

Indiana Congressional delegation was held 
to take action upon it. Albert G. Porter, 
then the representative from the Indian- 
apolis district, in a speech delivered on 
that occasion, said: 

It is hardly possible, sir, for persons who reside 
in an old community to appreciate the extent to 
which, in a new country, the character of a public 
man may be impressed upon the public mind. 
There is not a community in Indiana, not a single 
one, in which the name of Judge Blackford is not 
a household word. He has been identified with 
our State from the beginning. He may almost 
be said to be a part of our institutions. Judicial 
ability, judicial purity, approaching nearly to the 
idea of the divine, private worth, singularly blend- 
ing the simplicity of childhood with the sober 
gravity of age — these were represented, not 
simply in the mind of the profession, but in the 
universal popular mind of Indiana, in the person 
of Isaac Blackford. 

"At the same meeting General William 
McKee Dunn, then the representative from 
the Madison district, said: 

For more than a quarter of a century Judge 
Blackford occupied a seat on the Supreme Bench 
of our State. He has done more than any other 
man to build up our jurisprudence on the broad 
foundation of the common law- His reports are 
not only an honor to him, but to the State of 
Indiana also. It has been well said here that he 
was an "upright judge," and not only was he so 
in fact, but so careful was he of his judicial char- 
acter, and so regardful of all the proprieties of 
his position that he was universally I'ecognized 
and esteemed as "an upright judge." 

Indiana is proud of her great jurist, but to- 
day she mourns the loss of one of her most 
eminent citizens, and now by her united delega- 
tion in Congress claims that all that is mortal 
of Isaac Blackford may be entrusted to her care 
and have sepulture in her bosom. Let his body 
be borne back to the State with whose judicial 
history his name is inseparably connected, and 
there at its capital let him be buried, where those 
from all parts of the State who have so long 
known, revered and loved him may visit his tomb 
and pay affectionate tribute to his memory. 

"On Thursday, January 13, 1860, while 
the Democratic State convention was in 
session. Governor Willard announced to 
the convention that the remains of Judge 
Blackford had reached Indianapolis and 
were then lying in the Senate Chamber. 
He also said that the Judge's funeral 
would take place that afternoon, and in- 
vited the delegates to view the remains 
and attend the funeral. 

"In 1825 Judge Blackford was a candi- 
date for Governor of Indiana, but was de- 
feated by James Brown Ray by a majority 
of 2,622 votes. Subsequently he was a 

candidate for United States Senator, and 
was beaten by William Hendricks by a 
single vote. 

"Judge Blackford was very careful in 
his expenditure of money. He seldom 
parted with it without an equivalent. 

"Judge Blackford had an only son, 
George, whose mother died in giving him 
birth. The father was wrapped up in his 
boy. He was not only an only child, but 
he was the only hope of perpetuating the 
Blackford name. This boy, this child and 
companion of the cloisteral jurist, sickened 
and died while at Lexington, Ky., under 
medical treatment of Dr. Dudley. His 
father went to Lexington, and after see- 
ing his boy laid away in his tomb, returned 
to his home. It was in the summertime, 
and he reached Indianapolis in the middle 
of the night. Instead of going to his room 
in the Circle, he went to the residence of 
Henry P. Coburn, and, without knocking, 
opened the door and entered the house, a 
house in which he was ever welcome. Soon 
afterward one of Mr. Coburn's sons was 
awakened by the stifled sobs of the 
mourner. He arose from his bed and, 
lighting a candle, beheld Judge Blackford, 
walking the floor and sobbing as though 
his heart would break. Not a word was 
said. The young man knew the cause of 
the great grief of his father's friend, and 
having no wish to intrude upon its sanc- 
tity, left the room. Judge Blackford re- 
mained at Mr. Coburn's for several days, 
and during the time held no conversation 
with anyone. He took his meals in silence, 
and when they were over returned to his 
room. When narrating this incident, Gen- 
eral John Coburn said to the author: 'I 
have seen grief in all its forms ; have seen 
the mother mourning for her son; have 
seen the wife at the grave of her husband, 
and heard her sobs, but I never saw such 
appalling agonv as Judge Blackford ex- 
hiliited that night at my father's house.' 

"Judge Blackford had a room in the old 
building which used to stand in the Gov- 
ernor's Circle, in which he lived for many 
years. It was plainly furnished, but it 
contained everything necessary for his 

"One who knew him well says he paid 
as much attention to a comma as to a 
thought. He has been known to stop the 
press to correct the most trivial error, one 
that few would notice. The late Samuel 


Judah, desiring to have a decision delayed, 
once asked him the correct spelHng of a 
word he knew would be in the opinion. 
The Judge answered, giving the usual 
orthography. Mr. Judah took issue with 
him and argued that the spelling was not 
correct. The Judge at once commenced 
an examination of the word, dug out its 
roots and carefully weighed all the au- 
thorities he could find. He spent two days 
at this work, and before he got through 
the court had adjourned and the case went 
over to the next term. 

"In politics Judge Blackford was orig- 
inally a Whig, but in 1836 he supported 
Van Buren for the Presidency, and after- 
ward acted with the Democracy. He hated 
slavery, and during his whole life his in- 
fluence was against it. Although the 
ordinance ceding the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory to the United States provided that 
slavery should never exist in the Territory 
or the States formed from it, it was 
covertly introduced into the Territory. 
Laws were passed authorizing the bring- 
ing of negroes into the Territory and pro- 
viding for apprenticing males until they 
were thirty-five years old and females 
until they were thirty-two. Children of 
colored persons born in the Territory 
might be apprenticed until the males were 
thirty and the females twenty-eight years 
old. It was also provided that slaves 
found ten miles from home without per- 
mission of their masters might be taken 
up and whipped with twenty-five lashes. 
Congress was petitioned to suspend the 
sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, pro- 
hibiting slavery in the Territory, but hap- 
pily without effect. General Harrison was 
Governor of the Territory, and approved 
of all these measures. He had about him, 
and enjoying his confidence, Waller Tay- 
lor, Thomas Randolph, and other immi- 
grants from Virginia, who were pro- 
slavery men of the most decided cast. 
Judge Blackford hated slavery in all its 
forms and early allied himself with the 
free State party led by Jonathan Jennings. 
He held General Harrison responsible for 
the effort to make Indiana a slave Terri- 
tory, and when the General became a can- 
didate for President, in 1836, Judge Black- 
ford refused to support him. His action 
in this matter put him outside the Whig 
party and into the Democratic — a position 
he maintained while he lived. 

"His legal opinions were prepared with 
the greatest care and precision. They 
were written and rewritten until they were 
brought to his critical standard. So, too, 
with his reports of the decisions of the 
Supreme Court, eight volumes of which 
he published. Each syllabus was wrought 
out as a sculptor chisels his marble. He 
did not report all the decisions of the 
court; many were omitted. Those only 
were published which he regarded as sound 
and just on the general principles of the 
law. The result of this was his reports 
are authority wherever the courts recog- 
nize the common law as their rule of action. 
Since they were published a law has been 
passed compelling a report of all the opin- 
ions of the court. There have been so 
many contradictory opinions given since 
then that the authority of our highest 
court is not, relatively, as high as it was 
when its decisions were only known 
through Blackford's Reports. Judge Black- 
ford's reports were short and sententious, 
his style being clear and faultless. He did 
not write essays or treatises in his opin- 
ions, but treated of the essence of the 
case, and of nothing more. 

"Without favor, fear or affection he held 
up the scales of justice before the world. 
His spotless rectitude and unswerving jus- 
tice made his name a household word in 
Indiana, a State whose judicature he found 
in swaddling clothes and left clad in beau- 
tiful raiment." 


Judges Scott and Holman were by Gov- 
ernor Ray denied reappointment in 1830 
on account of their refusal to aid that am- 
bitious public functionary in his effort to 
secure a seat in the United States Senate. 
Stephen C. Stephens, a pronounced Aboli- 
tionist, and John T. McKinney, a Whig, 
were named as successors. Both encoun- 
tered considerable opposition to their con- 
firmation, but the Governor finally won 
out. Dewey and Sullivan were generally 
considered strong jurists. Governor 
Whitcomb named Judges Perkins and 
Smith, both of whom adorned the bench. 

So far as Judge Holman was concerned 
his retirement from the Supreme Bench of 
the State did not prove a detriment. Three 



1 6 - 1 9 1 G 

or four years afterward (in 1835) Presi- 
dent Jackson appointed him as Judge of 
the United States Circuit Court for In- 
diana. He was the second judge of the 
court and served until his death, on March 
28, 1842. Judge Holman was a native of 
Danville, Ky., being born in that city Oc- 
tober 24, 1784. He received a common 
school education in Kentucky and then 
studied law under Henry Clay at Lexing- 
ton. At the age of twenty-six he moved to 
Indiana and .settled for life on a farm near 
Aurora. He was one of the very first men 
in the State to bring his slaves (inherited 
by his wife) across the Ohio river and 
emancipate them. In 1811 he was Prose- 

cuting Attorney, and in 1814 became a 
member of the Territorial Legislature. In 
1881 he was an unsuccessful candidate for 
United States Senator, being defeated by 
John Tipton by one vote. He is described 
as a particularly careful, laborious, exact 
judge. It is said that a more conscientious 
man never lived. He had no enemies and 
he yet never shirked a duty. Judge Hol- 
man loved nature and books and was a 
preacher of the gospel. In denominational 
attiliation he was a Baptist. He was the 
father of William S. Holman, for many 
years the ever-faithful and vigilant watch- 
dog of the nation's treasury. 

( 123 ) 

[Chapter XVI.] 



AKING a retrospective view, 

'T'l measuring discerningly and 
I I dispassionately the achieve- 
1 11 ments of American statesman- 
ship during the first half cen- 
tury of the Republic's exist- 
ence, there is presented to the 
appreciative eye this inspiring picture of 


Territory Year Sq. Miles Price 

Louisiana 1803 875,025 $15,000,000 

Florida 1819 70,107 5,499,768 

Texas 1845 389,795 * 

Oregon 1846 288,689 * 

Me.\ican cession 1848 523,802 18,250,000 

Gadsden purchase 1854 36,211 10,000,000 

*Annexed by treaty. 

In striking contrast to Europe's history 
of territorial aggrandizement is the record 
of the growth of the United States. Not 
a piece of land has been added to our do- 
main unless compensation in some kind 
was made. 

But not only in its acquisition of terri- 
tory has the United States proved its high 
national morality to the congress of na- 
tions. In every international affair in 
which we have participated we have 
shown a regard for weaker nations, and a 
disregard for the opinions of strong ones. 

The history of the relations between the 
United States and Great Britain in the 
last hundred years is a testament to the 
efficiency of arbitration, when two nations 
really desire a peaceful settlement. The 
disputes over the Maine boundary, the 
fishery claims, the Oregon dispute, the 
Klondike frontier difference, the regula- 
tion of pelagic sealing, were all of as much 

importance — commercially, economically 
or geographically — as the causes of most 
any war in that same time. 

The first territorial acquisition of the 
United States was that of Louisiana from 
France. It was the largest real estate 
deal ever accomplished by friendly na- 
tions. The United States paid approxi- 
mately $15,000,000 for more than 875,000 
square miles of territory. 

Spain had acquired Louisiana in 1763 
when France retired from America. It 
controlled the mouth of the Mississippi 
river, the free passage of which early be- 
came a point of dispute with the United 
States. By 1802 a temporary settlement 
was made, when the United States learned 
of the secret treaty of San Ildefonso, 
whereby Spain gave Louisiana back to 

More disputes about the river followed. 
Feeling ran high in the new Republic. 
Jingoes advocated war with France to 
force better treatment. President Jeffer- 
son believed France might be persuaded 
to sell the island of New Orleans and that 
strip of the present Mississippi and Ala- 
bama between the thirty-first parallel and 
the Gulf of Mexico. The boundary of the 
United States then stopped at the thirty- 
first parallel. 

Robert R. Livingston, the American 
minister in Paris, was in.structed to pro- 
pose that matter to Napoleon, then first 
Consul.' James Monroe was sent to as- 
sist Mr. Livingston. France received the 
proposal with disfavor. War talk was 
heard again in the United States, when 
suddenly Napoleon, through Talleyrand 
and Marquis de Marbois, his minister of 




finance, offered to sell to the Republic not 
only the island and small strip of land, but 
the entire province of Louisiana. 

The first price asked was 120,000,000 
francs, with the assumption of all the 
province's debts by the purchaser. Amer- 
ica might have bought at that price, but 
as Napoleon was anxious to replenish his 
war chest to fight England, he lowered his 
terms. Ultimately the price was fixed at 
$15,000,000, and April 30, 1803, the prov- 
ince of Louisiana became American. 

The wording of the treaty conveying 
Louisiana was vague, and soon the United 
States became embroiled with Spain over 
the strip between the gulf and the thirty- 
first parallel. Spain claimed that terri- 
tory belonged to Florida, then a Spanish 
province, and had never been retrans- 
ferred to France. 

Spain maintained its position, and in 
1810 the inhabitants of the western part 
of the strip rebelled, organized an inde- 
pendent republic and then asked to be an- 
nexed to the United States. American 
troops took possession without any an- 
nexation formalities. In 1812 the area of 
American control was extended farther 
East. After England used Florida for a 
military base in the war of 1812, the dis- 
pute between Spain and the United States 
became more acute, and finally a confer- 
ence was held to adjust all difficulties. 

It resulted in Florida being ceded to the 
United States, Spain releasing all claim to 
the strip mentioned before. In return the 
United States agreed to take over all 
claims of American citizens against Spain 
up to $5,000,000 and pay some expenses 
and debts of the province, all aggregating 
about $5,500,000. The United States also 
gave up its claim to some territory west 
of the Sabine river in the present Texas. 

The United States made several efforts 
to acquire Texas before it was annexed. 
In 1827 an offer of $1,000,000 was made. 
Two years later $5,000,000 were offered. 

Mexico refused. In 1836 the Mexican 
provinces of Texas and Coahuila seceded 
and organized an independent republic 
under the name of Texas. It tried repeat- 
edly to enter the United States, but not 
until 1845 was the annexation completed 
and the Republic of Texas disestablished. 
No money was paid for Texas, but the 
people of the State were rewarded by the 
increased protection they enjoyed as a 
part of the United States. Later the State 
was paid $10,000 for lands ceded to the 
general Government in the adjustment of 
its boundaries. 

With Texas the United States also 
acquired a quarrel with Mexico over the 
territory between the Rio Grande and 
Nueces river. The Texas declaration of 
independence had named the Rio Grande 
as the southwestern boundary. Mexico 
claimed the more northern stream was 
correct. The United States chose to up- 
hold the Texas contention, which brought 
on the Mexican war of 1846-48. 

Uncle Sam's action in that war rather 
smacks of conquest, but he sugar-coated 
the forcible seizure of New Mexico and 
California by paying Mexico for them. 
The price was $18,250,000, $3,250,000 of 
which was to liquidate spoliation claims 
of American citizens against Mexico. 

Some writers have tried to show that 
the United States contemplated only seiz- 
ing the strip between the Nueces and Rio 
Grande when the war began, but the ex- 
igencies of the struggle made it necessary 
to take other land. Such attempts are 
futile. The United States took California 
and New Mexico by force, justifying its 
action by the knowledge that a great rich 
region was kept undeveloped by a back- 
ward nation, and paying a gold compensa- 
tion. Had a European nation been in 
Uncle Sam's place in 1848, Mexico would 
have been stripped not only of land, for 
which it was paid, but money as well. 
Mexico was paid $3,000,000 down and 
$12,000,000 in four annual payments. 



During the Mexican war the United 
States also acquii-ed clear title to another 
large and valuable tract of land — Oregon 
Territory. England laid some claim to it, 
but an arbitration conference awarded it 
to the United States in 1846. 

In 1854 the United States made its last 
acquisition of contiguous territory. In 
that year a strip of land, now known as 
the Gadsden purchase, was acquired. 
Mexico was given $10,000,000 for it, an 
excellent price. It provided a way for a 
trans-continental railroad. 

The contemplation of such a record is 
well calculated to arouse in Democratic 
breasts a spirit of exuberance and exulta- 
tion. With pardonable pride it may be re- 
ferred to as a splendid vindication of 
Democratic judgment and fortitude in 
holding out determinedly against the 
whimsical, hysterical and at times vicious 
attitude of the Whigs in opposing both the 
annexation of Texas and the war against 
Mexico. Steering clear of that which 
might be considered vainglorious boastful- 
ness, there is abundant justification for 
bringing to popular attention the magni- 
tude of that marvelous territorial expan- 
sion under which a mighty nation thrives 
and prospers between two great oceans. 
In fitting terms the splendor of this 
achievement is vividly brought within the 
grasp and comprehension of the present 
generation by a veteran Democratic jour- 
nalist who for many years championed 
and vitalized Democratic doctrines in In- 
diana. His admirable production richly 
merits a conspicuous place in this volume : 


(By Major Geo. E. Finney, Editor of the 
Martinsville Democrat.) 

"There are times and occasions when 
opponents of Democracy opprobriously ap- 
ply such terms as 'Bourbon,' 'negative 
quantity,' and 'unprogressive plodders' to 
the party that prides itself as having had 
Thomas Jefferson as its founder. By way 
of rejoinder it may be said that in only 

one particular are the Democrats Bour- 
bons. They early learned and imbibed the 
spirit of the constitution. Its meaning in 
the early days is in no different from 
its meaning now. To that instrument 
they have clung through all the changing 
years. As to it they have learned nothing 
new, nor have they forgotten its spirit and 
its teachings. Thus far and no farther 
are they Bourbons. 

"A 'negative party'? Let's see. It put 
its impress upon the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence; it materially assisted in orig- 
inating the Government, providing those 
wise measures and supporting them em- 
bodied in the constitution under which the 
country has passed through one hundred 
and twenty-five years of unexampled pros- 
perity and happiness; under which the 
country has been brought safely through 
every trouble that is likely to frown upon 
us, and under which, aided by superb 
statesmanship, indomitable courage and 
confidence in man's ability for a patriotic 
self-government, it has avoided the rock 
upon which other countries have split. 
While these are material achievements 
whose influence envelop us by night and 
make the air around us pure Isy day, they 
are not such things as those upon which 
a measure may be put and their value cal- 
culated by dollars and cents, or their ex- 
tent measured by leagues and furlongs. 
But the party is to be credited with large 
achievements of this character, too, as — 

"Take a map of the United States, trace 
a line beginning near Fernandina, Fla., on 
the north line of that State, west, with an 
offset to the north at Chattahoochee river 
to the Mississippi, thence with that river 
to its source, and over a stretch of coun- 
try still further north till the line inter- 
sects Rainy Lake river, near its issuance 
from the Lake of the Woods ; from this 
point east along the lake line, St. Lawrence 
river and the northeast boundary to the 
ocean, thence along the coast line to the 
place of beginning. Within this boundary 
is found the original area of the United 
States, embracing 827,080 square miles of 

"The total area in square miles of the 
United States (excluding Florida and 
Alaska) is 2,967,226. Deduct from this 
grand total the original area, in .square 
miles thus— 2,967,226 minus 827,080, and 
there results 2,180,146. These figures 
represent the territory which, through the 


clear foresight and the splendid diplomacy 
of the Democratic party, was acquired 
and, without war or conquest, added to 
this country. 

"Though Florida was acquired by pur- 
chase as a result of a compromise on the 
Rio Grande-Sabine river boundary line 
dispute under a Democratic President, yet 
it is excluded from the count for the rea- 
son that the purchase was accomplished 
during the 'era of good feeling' — a notable 
period when no political parties were bat- 
tling for supremacy — and therefore the 
Democracy is not entitled to exclusive 
credit. Nor is Alaska, because that icicle 
was the gift of the Republican party. But 
all the contiguous accessions besides the 
Democratic party gave to the country, and 
all of this splendid heritage was acquired 
in the face of opposition, some of it reach- 
ing if not to treasonable, at least to most 
unpatriotic, utterances. 

"A magnificent domain in itself! Its 
northern boundary stretches out for six- 
teen hundred miles before reaching the 
Pacific; its coast line eighteen hundred 
miles; its southern line two thousand 
miles, and its river line the whole length 
of the Mississippi and more. Within this 
boundary is found a land of varied condi- 
tion, but most of which contains elements 
of wealth to the people and to the Gov- 
ernment. Its auriferous ores glisten in 
the eyes of the world ; the products of its 
grazing grounds reach the sea and cross 
it; its golden cereal is quoted in the world's 
great marts; its luscious fruits gladden 
the palates of the peoples of many climes, 
and its grand scenery attracts the lovers 
of the beautiful from far and near. Upon 
every league of this vast expanse — from 
the mouth of the Father of Waters to the 
far-away Cape Flattery, from the Gila to 
the Lake of the Woods — the Democratic 
footprint is seen and the sign-manual of 
the party of Jefi'erson is writ in characters 
of unfading glory. 

"The area of accessions is more than 
two and a half times larger than the orig- 
inal country, conquered from England. In 
a national sense the value of this achieve- 
ment cannot be computed, but a few 
minutes' thought will open the mind to its 
vast importance. In the absence of this 
addition of territory, the Mississippi and 
an imaginary line north of its source 
would have been its boundary on the west, 
and the great breadth of lands between it 

and the Pacific coast owned and occupied 
by foreign peoples. He that has read his- 
tory, even very recent history, will recog- 
nize at once the danger of such a line in 
case of trouble with national neighbors, 
and the cost of maintaining defenses along 
such a stretch of boundary, both in times 
of peace as well as war. I'he clear fore- 
sight of Jefferson appreciated this danger 
and sought to avert it. Again, to our 
country had been invited the oppressed 
people of other nations to find asylum and 
home within our borders. And the people 
came. It was easy enough to see that in 
the coming years more territory would be 
needed, and this thought added strength 
to the purpose. 

"Following in the steps of Jefferson, the 
later Democracy saw safety, national 
security and commercial value in pushing 
the boundary farther west, for on the sea 
line a boundary was to be found, secure 
in its permanency, dependable in its 
strength and economical in its keep, in 
that it would require few fortifications 
and its liability to incursions be negligible. 
It requires little fancy to conjure up the 
succession of quarrels, brawls, raids and 
disturbances of various kinds that always 
characterize the people along such a 
boundary as that which Jefferson 
saw. As a testimony to this con- 
template the late and present con- 
dition on our Mexican border. Then 
would we sigh with a vain regret 
over the 'what might have been' if the 
tide had been taken at its flood. But, 
thanks to the Democratic party, such 
imaginings were anticipated. The wis- 
dom of its leaders dictated the course that 
was to redound to the glory and welfare 
of the Nation. Schooled in the revolution, 
their minds expanded with the happy close 
of the great struggle, and they saw with a 
prescient eye the grand possibilities of 
the years to come. 

"When the young man has studied the 
parties with a view to choosing party- 
affiliations, and has, as well as he may, 
mastered the principles and policies of the 
contending parties of today, he will feel 
a pride in allying himself with the De- 
mocracy. In the contemplation of its 
grand and worthy past, he will feel that 
he has in some sort a part and parcel in 
its grand achievements." 



- 1 


Viewing with supreme satisfaction the 
events that brought about the immense ex- 
pansion of Uncle Sam's territory, it may 
not be amiss to note the predictions of woe 
that were elicited as a result of the firm 
stand taken by the statesmen who cham- 
pioned the policy of a greater American 
Union. After the occupation of California 
by the United States, Sidney Smith pre- 
dicted that "This marks the end of the 
great American Republic, for a people 
spread over such a vast area, having such 
diversified interests and separated by such 
natural barriers, cannot hold together." 

His logic was perfect and his conclu- 
sions eminently correct, but for a totally 
unexpected occurrence — the invention of 
the telegraph. The telegraph was in use 
then, but no one saw even dimly its possi- 

The necessity of binding together the 
peoples of vast nations by means of rapid 
communication had been worrying the 
world for some time. The Russian gov- 
ernment went so far as to build 220 sema- 
phore towers from the Russian frontier to 
St. Petersburg, by way of Warsaw, 1,200 
miles. Thirteen hundred operators were 
employed, and a semaphore, on the plan of 
the present railway signal, but with many 
more arms, was used. 

In 1832 similar systems were in use in 
France and Prussia and one word could be 
signaled from Paris to Toulon, 475 miles, 
in twelve minutes. These systems were 
hardly established, at tremendous expense, 
when Professor Morse knocked them into 
a cocked hat. 

What a howl was raised when Jeffer- 
son consummated the celebrated Louisiana 
Territory purchase. When its ratification 
came up in Congress Josiah Quincy of 
Massachusetts rose and tore hair. Jeffer- 
son was an "idiot" and a "madman," and 

Massachusetts was going to secede if this 
monkey business went any further. 

"This constitution never was intended 
to be and never can be strained to lay all 
over the wilderness of the West without 
essentially affecting the rights and con- 
sciences of its proprietors," he declared. 
"Why, sir, I have heard of six new States, 
and some say there will be, at no great dis- 
tance of time, more. It was not for them 
that this constitution was adopted. You 
have no authority to throw the rights and 
liberties of the people of the United States 
into a hotchpot with the wild men on the 
Missouri, or the mixed, though more re- 
spectable, Anglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans 
who bask on the sands of the Mississippi. 
New States are intended to be formed be- 
yond the Mississippi. There is no limit to 
man's imagination on this subject short 
of California and the Columbia river." 
The "wild men on the Missouri" con- 
stitute a mighty foi'ce. They are an im- 
portant factor in the galaxy of States. 
Their number is counted by millions. But 
please don't judge harshly of Josiah 
Quincy. How could he, in the days of his 
activity, have foreseen the networks of 
railroads, the myriads of telegraph poles 
and wires, the wondrous performance of 
the telephone and the other cords which 
are yet to make the Columbia and the 
Hudson next door neighbors? 

Viewing ever so kindly and consider- 
ately the dire predictions made by some of 
the sages of the remote past, let us not lose 
sight of the comforting fact that not a 
single slave territory or new slave State 
was carved out of all the vast territory an- 
nexed and acquired from Mexico ! Verily, 
poor prophets were the politicians and 
statesmen who, in those days, protested so 
vehemently against the expansion cham- 
pioned and accomplished by the party of 
Jefferson, Jackson and Polk. 


[Chapter XVII.] 



AKING into consideration the 
fact that the framers of In- 
diana's first constitution re- 
quired only nineteen days 
wherein to perform the task 
assigned to them, it must be 
conceded that they quite suc- 
ceeded in meeting the wishes of the people 
whom they served. Provision had been 
made in that document for subsequent 
changes at relatively short intervals, yet 
the people indicated their unwillingness to 
avail themselves of that privilege by wait- 
ing thirty-five years before they sup- 
planted the old with the new. 

The assumption is thus warranted that 
the men who made the Constitution of 
1816 did a good job, not alone for the im- 
mediate present and the near future, but 
for a succeeding generation. Moreover, 
their product must have given unfeigned 
satisfaction to the wise men at Washing- 
ton, in congress assembled, for that august 
body not only placed its stamp of approval 
upon the newly-made constitution, but re- 
lieved the people of the infant common- 
wealth of the necessity of passing thereon 
by popular vote. That no false notion may 
find lodgment in the Hoosier mind as to 
this having been an exhibition of parti- 
ality and favoritism the further statement 
is vouchsafed that Ohio at the time of its 
admission into the Union was favored in 
like manner. Congress evidently believed 
in those days that when the people of a 
Territory knocking for admission into the 
Union are authorized to select the men 
charged with the framing of their future 
organic law, such selection ought to be 
made with the understanding that their 
acts shall be final and not subject to ap- 
proval or rejection by the populace. 

That this belief was founded upon rea- 
son and sound judgment is evidenced by 
the excellence of the work actually done. 
Both Ohio and Indiana got along very well 
for many years with their respective State 
constitutions, though neither document 
had first been submitted to popular vote. 

Whether the Constitution of 1851 is a 
marked improvement upon the Constitu- 
tion of 1816 is neither the purpose nor the 
province of this publication to determine. 
There is just one phase to which attention 
is being directed, and that is whether the 
welfare of the State was enhanced by 
making State officers other than Governor 
and Lieutenant-Governor elective by the 
people. To reach a just conclusion with 
reference to this, let comparisons be insti- 
tuted and let the verdict be rendered in 
conformity with actual experience — the 
only real test. The question to be passed 
upon is whether a better class of men have 
been chosen for Secretary of State, Au- 
ditor and Treasurer under the Constitu- 
tion of 1851 than were chosen under the 
provisions of the Constitution of 1816? 

Discussion of the relative merits of the 
two methods of choosing State officials has 
developed a pronounced .sentiment in favor 
of the system in operation in Pennsylvania 
since the adoption of that State's new con- 
stitution in 1872. To Charles R. Buck- 
alew, for many years the idolized leader 
of the Keystone Democracy, is mainly due 
the credit for having brought about the 
change under consideration. In all its hi.s- 
tory, Penn.sylvania never had a long list of 
State officers to choose by popular vote. 
Under the present system the people of 
Pennsylvania elect only four State officers, 
to wit: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, 
Treasurer and Secretary of Internal 


Affairs, besides Judges of the Supreme 
and Appellate Courts. Secretary of State, 
Auditor, Attorney-General, Superintend- 
ent of Public Instruction, etc., are all ap- 
pointed by the Governor. These officials 
constitute the Governor's Cabinet. This 
Cabinet is, in so far as feasible, patterned 
after the President's Cabinet at Washing- 
ton. It has worked excellently in Penn- 
sylvania, so much so that during a period 
covering four decades not even a sugges- 
tion has been ventured to supplant it vi^ith 
some other plan or system. The official 
business of the State is transacted far 
more expeditiously and efficiently than 
under the elective system, and the Gov- 
ernor is afforded far greater opportunity 
to devote his time and attention to mat- 
ters properly pertaining to his office than 
is possible in our State. If enlightenment 
on this subject is needed, let any one spend 
a day at the State House at Indianapolis 
and make note of the innumerable trivial 
things that are from day to day thrust 
upon the attention of Governor Ralston. 
Under the so-called Federal (or cabinet) 
plan all matters are referred to the proper 
department and attended to by the proper 
person. Three or four of our Indiana 
Governors have had their lives shortened 
by the tremendous pressure brought on 
them as a result of the onerous and de- 
structive system in vogue at our State 

But the real purpose of these pages is 
to record the manner and circumstances 
under which the Constitution of 1816 was 
discarded and the Constitution of 1851 
brought into existence. As tersely set 
forth in Moore's "A Century of Indiana," 
the change was brought about for these 
reasons and in this manner: 

"Feeling that the State had outgrown 
its first constitution, and the need of many 
changes being apparent, the people voted 
affirmatively in 1850 upon a proposition 
to call a constitutional convention. The 
convention convened at Indianapolis, Oc- 
tober 7, 1850, and continued in session un- 

til February 10, 1851. It was composed 
of one hundred and fifty delegates, and 
the wisdom of their work in framing a 
new constitution is generally recognized. 
The constitution framed and adopted by 
the convention was later ratified by the 
people at the polls and became the funda- 
mental law of the State. It went into 
effect November 1, 1851. The vote upon 
its adoption stood — 109,310 yeas and 26,- 
755 nays. A separate ballot was taken on 
the thirteenth article, which resulted in its 
adoption by substantially the same vote. 

"The thirteenth article forbade the com- 
ing into the State of any negro or mulatto ; 
made contracts entered into with any such 
void and provided fines against citizens 
who should employ or otherwise encour- 
age negroes to remain in the State. Fines 
so assessed were to be set aside as a fund 
for colonizing any negroes already in the 
State, or their descendants, who should be 
willing to immigrate. This article was 
stricken out by an amendment ratified by 
vote of the people in 1881. 

"The new constitution also limited the 
suffrage to white voters and provided that 
only white males over the age of twenty- 
one years should be considered in fixing 
the basis of representation in the General 
Assembly. By amendments adopted in 
1881 the word 'white' was stricken out 
wherever it appeared in the constitution, 
thus ending discrimination between the 
races and admitting the negro to the fran- 
chise and full rights of citizenship. 

"Among the important changes made 
by the new constitution from the provi- 
sions of the old were: The power of ap- 
pointing supreme court judges was tak- 
en from the Governor, and all judicial offi- 
cers were made elective by the people ; the 
Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State 
were made elective by the people instead 
of by the Legislature; sessions of the 
Legislature were made biennial instead of 
annual; the Legislature was forbidden to 
pass local or special laws ; a system of gen- 
eral banking laws was provided for and 
the State prohibited from becoming a 
stockholder in any banking or other corpo- 

The making or amending of a constitu- 
tion has for years engaged popular atten- 
tion in Indiana to such an extent that a 
complete history of the circumstances at- 
tending the creation of the present organic 



law will surely be highly prized by every 
reader of this volume, especially when 
mention is made that this historical re- 
view emanates from the pen of Prof. Lo- 
gan Esarey of the University of Indiana : 


"By the terms of the Constitution of 
1816 it was provided that every twelve 
years a referendum vote should be taken 
on the advisability or necessity of calling 
a constitutional convention. It was the 
generally accepted theory then, as laid 
down in the writings of Jefferson, that one 
generation had no moral or legal right to 
bind by constitutional limitation a suc- 
ceeding generation. It is hardly probable 
that the framers of the constitution in- 
tended by this provision to prevent the 
citizens of Indiana from calling a constitu- 
tional convention any time they chose. 
It is more probable that it was intended 
by this referendum to insure each gener- 
ation two chances of holding a convention 
in spite of an opposing General Assembly. 
It must be kept in mind that the immedi- 
ate followers of Jefferson looked with 
favor upon the constitutional convention 
as one of the most effective institutions of 
popular Democracy. 

"There appears to have been very little 
demand for a new convention for a long 
time after 1816. As one of the opponents 
of calling a convention, George W. Julian 
said in 1847 : The people of Indiana are 
attached to their constitution. It is the 
work of their forefathers. Under it for 
thirty years they have enjoyed a degree of 
prosperity unsurpassed by any State in 
the Union.' 

"The cause for calling a constitutional 
convention among English-speaking peo- 
ple is always found to be insistent and 
acting through considerable periods of 
time. The American people generally 
have not lightly called into activity such 
revolutionary bodies. There has always 
been some deep-seated dissatisfaction. 
There were several minor defects in the 
working of the State and local govern- 
ments under the first constitution, but the 
chief ground of complaint was the work- 
ing of the General Assembly. This body 
had led the State into a gigantic system of 
internal improvements in which the State 
had lost more than $12,000,000. The 

State became deeply involved in debt. Its 
bonds were hawked about the Eastern 
markets as low as 17 cents on the dollar. 
A gang of hungry office holders had been, 
and still were, robbing the State, and the 
General Assembly seemed unable or un- 
willing to shake them off. The annual 
meetings of the Assembly seemed to be an 
unnecessai'y expense and the annual elec- 
tions kept the people in a political turmoil. 
Moreover, the General Assembly was 
neglecting the affairs of the State and giv- 
ing its time and attention to hundreds of 
petty private affairs. A reading of the 
titles of the special laws of any session 
will give one an idea of the petty jobbery 
that was carried on by means of special 

"With all this dissatisfaction the de- 
mand for a convention, if we are to take 
the votes on the subject as evidence, was 
not strong. There is scarcely any mention 
of the vote on the subject up till 1846. A 
referendum had been taken in 1823, only 
seven years after the constitution went 
into effect. The vote was decisive against 
calling a convention. In 1828, four years 
later, the regular twelve-year referendum 
was taken with a similar result. During 
the following twelve years there was lit- 
tle agitation on the subject. The General 
Assembly of 1845, however, took up the 
subject. There was a spirited demand by 
a few energetic members for a convention. 
They succeeded in passing a law authoriz- 
ing a referendum on the subject at the 
ensuing August election. This was six 
years earlier than the constitution de- 
manded, but the friends of the movement 
urged with force that the people had an 
undeniable and inalienable right to call a 
constitutional convention whenever they 


"The result of this referendum vote was 
that out of a total of 126,133 votes cast 
at the State election there were 33,173 for 
a convention and 28,843 opposed. A ma- 
jority of all the voters had not expressed 
themselves on the subject. 

"When this vote was reported to the 
General Assembly it provoked a serious 
debate. It was generally agreed that the 
vote was not decisive and that it did not 
warrant the General Assembly in calling 
the proposed convention. Many members 
favored submitting the question again to 


a popular vote at the next August election. 
Other members opposed all agitation on 
the subject as calculated to bring political 
disquiet and unrest. The times, it was 
pointed out, were especially dangerous. 
The State was almost bankrupt, taxes 
were high and times were hard. Of all 
times the present, it was urged, would be 
the worst to agitate a change in the funda- 
mental law. 

"In spite of the efforts of a determined 
group of members the question was not 
favored by the General Assembly. It is 
noticeable that what might be called the 
professional politicians avoided taking 
sides in this discussion. The referendum 
in 1846 was not mentioned in the leading 
papers, and evidently was not discussed 
on the stump. The Governor, in report- 
ing the result of the vote in his annual 
message, made no recommendation that 
might be construed into a position. 

"The demand for a convention, how- 
ever, did not cease. The Democratic party 
in general favored the proposition. The 
court practice, they said, was especially 
costly. Probate courts and associate 
judges were regarded as worse than use- 
less; they were meddlesome. The justices 
had once been the chief officers of the 
county, but since a board of commission- 
ers had taken their duties, they had be- 
come petty politicians, valuable only to 
those who wished to bribe a court or cor- 
rupt a jury. 


"Many good citizens, regardless of 
party, looked upon the appointing power 
of the Governor as a source of much evil. 
They thought that such officers as the Au- 
ditor, Treasurer and other State officers 
should be elected by the people rather than 
by the General Assembly. The recent at- 
tempt by the Governor to barter nomina- 
tions to the Supreme Court for a seat in 
the United States Senate had given a con- 
crete point to the general demand to limit 
the appointing power of the Governors. 
By 1849 Governor Whitcomb, sure of his 
promotion to the United States Senate, 
came out openly for a convention in his 
annual message. He, no doubt, put his 
finger on the weakest point in the govern- 
ment under the old constitution when he 
emphasized the evil of private and local 
legislation. In the annual volumes of laws 
for the previous four or five sessions the 

local laws had outnumbered the general 
five or six to one. In the volume of 1849 
there are 343 acts published as 'local laws' 
and 273 as 'general laws.' Of the latter 
more than 200 are strictly 'local.' The 
time of the whole session was consumed 
in political jockeying and log-rolling. The 
annual volume of laws noted above con- 
tained 616 laws and 37 joint resolutions. 


"The General Assembly of 1848 took up 
the question and passed an act submitting 
the question of calling a constitutional 
convention to the voters. A large major- 
ity of the votes cast at the ensuing August 
election were in favor of calling a conven- 
tion. The following General Assembly, by 
act approved January 18, 1850, ordered 
an election of delegates. The election was 
held at the same time and in all essential 
parts was the same as an election of mem- 
bers of the General Assembly. There 
were 150 delegates chosen from the same 
districts as the members of the House and 
Senate except in two unimportant dis- 

"There was little interest in the cam- 
paign as far as electing delegates was con- 
cerned. It was hoped by many to make 
the elections nonpartisan, but such was 
not the case as a rule. It seems true, how- 
ever, that the Whigs took considerably less 
political interest in the election than the 


"A caucus of the Whig members of the 
General Assembly declared in favor of a 
constitutional convention and especially 
urged that the following changes be made 
in the constitution : All officers should be 
elected by popular vote; the General As- 
sembly should be prohibited from borrow- 
ing money except for urgent necessities; 
the county seminary funds should be 
transferred to the fund for common 
schools; the General Assembly should 
meet biennially; local legislation should 
be prohibited; the number of officers 
should be reduced and the establishment 
of new ones forbidden; a homestead ex- 
emption should be provided, and more en- 
couragement should be given to agricul- 
ture, mining and manufacturing. 

"In the county of Marion the Whigs 
offered to divide the ticket equally and 



make no contest, but the Democrats re- 
fused. In Jefferson county the Whigs 
compromised on a ticket of two Whigs and 
one Democrat. There were many in- 
stances in which fusion tickets were 
elected without contest, but fusion was not 
general. Of the fifty delegates from sena- 
torial districts thirty-three were Demo- 
crats and seventeen were Whigs; of the 
one hundred delegates from representa- 
tive districts sixty-four were Democrats 
and thirty-six Whigs. Of the fifty State 
Senators elected at the time thirty-three 
were Democrats and seventeen Whigs; of 
the Representatives sixty-two were Demo- 
crats and thirty-eight Whigs. It will thus 
be seen that the political affiliations of the 
General Assembly and the constitutional 
convention were the same. 


"The delegates, 150 in number, assem- 
bled in the Capitol building October 7, 
1850, and were organized bv the Secretary 
of State, Charles H. Test. They were a 
representative body of citizens. The best- 
known men of the State at the time, how- 
ever, were not present. From our dis- 
tance one would say that Robert Dale 
Owen, Alvin P. Hovey, Thomas A. Hen- 
dricks, W. S. Holman, Schuyler Colfax 
and Horace P. Biddle were among its most 
distinguished members, but they were 
young and entirely without reputation at 
the time. The really distinguished men of 
the convention, as they gathered together 
for the first time, were Thomas D. Wal- 
pole, Abel Pepper, Daniel Kelso, James G. 
Reed, David Kilgore, Ross Smiley, Michael 
G. Bright, William M. Dunn, George W. 
Carr, David Wallace, Jacob Page Chap- 
man, James Rariden and John I. Mor- 
rison. Seventy-five of the members had 
served in the General Assembly, thirteen 
of whom had sat in the last session. 
Twenty-five more made this the stepping 
stone to later legislative service. Four- 
teen saw service in the United States Con- 
gress, two later became Governors, while 
one was an ex-Governor. There were 
seven well-known editors, three of whom 
came from Indianapolis. The great law- 
yers of the State were noticeably absent. 
A widespread prejudice against educated 
men existed at the time. There were three 
graduates of the State University and per- 
haps as many more were graduates of 
other colleges. 


"The spirit of Jack.son controlled the 
convention. Daniel Read, a delegate of 
Monroe and a professor of the State Uni- 
versity, referred to Jackson as 'a man of 
as remarkable sagacity as ever lived.' As 
a consequence of this it was attempted to 
strengthen Democracy among the people 
by bringing the Government nearer the 
voter. The Secretary, Treasurer and Au- 
ditor of State, formerly appointed by the 
General Assembly, were made elective. To 
these were added the new office of Su- 
perintendent of Public Instruction to be 
filled by popular election. Besides the 
above the Judges of the Supreme and Cir- 
cuit Courts were made elective by the peo- 
ple for six-year terms. The Prosecuting 
Attorneys and the local justices, all for- 
merly appointed, were made elective, the 
former by the voters in the judicial cir- 
cuit and the latter by the voters of the 
township. In the county the voters were 
made the electors of a Clerk of the Circuit 
Court, an Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, 
Sheriff, Coroner and Surveyor for each 
county. The General Assembly was given 
permission to establish other elective offi- 
cers, a power which it has used immoder- 
ately. Some of these officers so elected 
were eligible only for one term, but the 
majority were permitted to hold for two 
consecutive terms. In dealing with the 
suffrage elections and oflfice holding, the 
general principles of Jacksonian De- 
mocracy then prevalent were applied. In 
general the convention made the most lib- 
eral application of the principles of man- 
hood suffrage and popular elections. 

"It was accused in many places of play- 
ing politics by allowing unnaturalized 
citizens to vote after one year's residence. 
Senator Bright made this criticism. 

"In dealing with the negroes, both free 
and slave, the convention illustrated the 
confused political notions of the times. It 
re-enacted the provisions of the ordinance 
of 1787 with a bruskness that indicated an 
absolute majority of Abolitionists; yet the 
provisions refusing negroes the right to 
vote or even to settle in the State are, in 
spirit, directly contradictory to the above 
enactment. Not only provisions, but 
the speeches of the members on the ques- 
tion of slavery, show the utmost diversity 
of opinion. Not less than forty .set 



speeches on slavery, few of them dealing 
with any question before the convention, 
were made by, the members. 

"In the article on the legislative depart- 
ment two important changes were made, 
both dictated by the overwhelming proof 
of experience. One change was the sub- 
stitution of biennial for annual sessions of 
the General Assembly. The other forbade 
the General Assembly making special or 
local laws. 

"In this field the granting of divorces by 
the General Assembly had occasioned most 
hostile criticism. For years the churches 
had opposed this exercise of power by a 
legislative body. A former General As- 
sembly had invested the State courts with 
power to try divorce bills, but the Assem- 
bly could not divest itself of the power 
and the abuse continued. 


"The convention adjourned Monday 
morning, February 10, 1851. It had been 
in session eighteen weeks. No event in 
the State's history had received as much 
attention and publicity. The daily papers 
and many of the larger weeklies published 
the proceedings entire from week to week 
or from day to day. Innumerable articles 
by citizens in praise or condemnation of 
the work appeared in the papers. An- 
swers by the members in defense were 
equally plentiful. Editorials explained 
the work of the convention day by day and 
gave the editors' opinions of its value. It 
was an eighteen weeks' course in political 
science for the citizens of the State. 

"The completed constitution was read 
at the last session of the convention on the 
morning of February 10. It appeared at 
once on the front pages of the newspapers, 
many of which repeated its publication in 
the three or four succeeding issues. The 
convention ordered 55,000 copies of the 
constitution— 50,000 in English and 5,000 
in German — printed for distribution. 
These appeared early in March. 

"The convention had suggested that the 
new constitution be submitted to the peo- 
ple for ratification or rejection at the next 
August election. The General Assembly 
affirmed this suggestion February 4, 1851, 
and the Governor's proclamation followed 
immediately, directing the election officers 
to carry the order into efl'ect. 


"There was no organized opposition to 
the ratification. Both parties favored the 
new constitution. At the ensuing election 
every county gave an affirmative majority 
but Ohio. Starke county cast a unanimous 
vote for the constitution. The total vote 
was 113,230 for and 27,638 against ratifi- 
cation, a majority of 85,592 out of a total 
vote of 140,868. The vote for. the exclu- 
sion of colored persons was substantially 
the same, being an affirmative vote of 113,- 
828 out of a total vote of 135,701. Three 
counties, Lagrange, Randolph and Steu- 
ben, voted against negro exclusion. The 
total vote on the constitution was little 
short of that cast for Congressmen. The 
total vote in the ten Congressional dis- 
tricts was 148,529. That there was no 
partisan opposition to the constitution is 
shown by this vote. The Democrats car- 
ried the State at this election by a major- 
ity of only 9,469. 

"The new constitution went into opera- 
tion November 1, 1851. The General As- 
sembly elected in August, 1851, met as di- 
rected by the old constitution. The first 
general election under the new constitu- 
tion was held in October, 1852, the old offi- 
cers holding until the newly elected ones 
were qualified and took their positions ac- 
cording to law. There was no jar in the 
operations of the State government dur- 
ing the change. 

"One of the objections urged at first 
against a constitutional convention was 
that it would cost an enormous sum of 
money at a time when the State was al- 
most bankrupt and could ill afford to spend 
any money except for the most urgent 
need. The total expense for the eighteen- 
week session, as shown by the State Treas- 
urer's report was $85,043.82." 

If it be true, as contended by John 
Quincy Adams, that "the will of the people 
is the end of all legitimate government on 
earth," then there can be no diversity of 
opinion as to the necessity of the "will of 
the people" being soundly formed and 
thoughtfully executed. When this is ex- 
pected to be done, the character, stability 
and judgment of the electorate must have 
greater consideration than has been be- 
stowed upon the same for decade upon de- 
cade. Lincoln, who always spoke tenderly 



and affectionately of the "plain people," 
and who for many years sustained very 
close relations to the masses, felt con- 
strained to admit that "the people wob- 
ble," but qualified the gentle accusation by 
saying that "they finally wobble right." 
When this ensues, as Colonel Geo. B. Lock- 
wood interprets, the demagogue disap- 
pears, the fame of the opportunist withers, 
the reputation of the political coward dies. 
But what about the mischief wrought 
while the people wobbled? 

Burke was eternally right when he de- 
clared that "government is a contrivance 
of human wisdom to provide for human 
wants." Again is thus pressed upon pub- 
lic attention the desirability and necessity 
of an alert electorate, the safeguard of a 
Republic. But, bear in mind, alertness 
can neither be created by legislative en- 
actment nor instilled into the electorate by 
constitutional provision. It will have to 
be evolved from a citizenship of tested 
virtue, of nobility of purpose, of patriotic 
aims, and of good common sense. An 
alert electorate will be guided by sound 
leadership instead of being swayed by the 
sophistry of glib-tongued demagogues. 
Reason must count for more than seduc- 
tive plausibility ; stern truth for more than 
evanescent sentimentalism. 

As some viands are unpalatable to epi- 
cures, so stern truth is distasteful to per- 
sons who care to burden their minds only 
with things that accord with their fancy. 
Unmindful of such aversion. Professor 
William James is entitled to being ac- 
corded a respectful hearing while shouting 
these solemn truths into the public ear: 

"The human individual lives usually far 
within his limits. He possesses powers of 
various sorts which he habitually fails to 
use. He energizes below his maximum 
and he behaves below his optimum. . . . 
Compared with what we ought to be, we 
are only half awake. Our fires are 
damped, our drafts are checked. We are 
making use of only a small part of our 
possible mental and physical resources." 

The right to vote is a privilege, not a 
natural prerogative; a delegated author- 
ity. It is conferred upon individuals by 
constitutional ordinance. The privilege 
thus accorded ought to be .sacredly re- 
garded. It probably would be were it not 
§0 common. But, however regarded, it is 
the essence of governmental authority. 
Its debasement, debauch or decadence 
would presage the inevitable downfall of 
free institutions. 

Now let us look at some of the incon- 
sistencies traceable to the indiff"erence of 
the electorate. By an overwhelming ma- 
jority of the popular vote the draft of a 
constitution was ratified in Indiana, in the 
year 1851, which contained a clause that 
conferred upon aliens residing within the 
State one year the right to vote upon hav- 
ing made a declaration of intention to be- 
come a citizen, in conformity with the 
naturalization laws of the United States. 
About that time the Know-Nothing move- 
ment was making considerable headway, 
so that within a few years it became a con- 
trolling factor in Indiana politics. Then 
formal declaration was made by the then 
dominant party organization "that we are 
in favor of the naturalization laws of Con- 
gress with the five-year probation, and 
that the right of suffrage should accom- 
pany and not precede naturalization." 
Now, why did these people fail to assert 
themselves when a new constitution was 
being framed and adopted? There was no 
pressure brought upon the constitutional 
convention by persons of foreign birth to 
make voters of aliens upon a one-year's 
residence in the State. It is entirely 
within the bounds of reason and probabil- 
ity to say that not a half-dozen aliens set- 
tled down in Indiana because of this ex- 
traordinary grant of the elective fran- 
chise. Reasoning persons of foreign birth 
never complained of the five-year proba- 
tionary period established under our nat- 
uralization laws. On the contrary, they 
commended and lauded it when a pro- 



scriptive cabal temporarily gained ascend- 
ancy in some commonwealths by demand- 
ing that the probationary period be ex- 
tended to twenty-one years and that 
Catholics be rendered ineligible to public 
office. Wisconsin, with its immense Ger- 
man, Norwegian and Scandinavian popu- 
lation, a few years since abolished the one- 
year abomination and limited the right to 
vote to citizens of the United States duly 
naturalized or to the manner born. Mich- 
igan did practically the same thing when 
it passed under a new constitution. In 
Indiana alone, among all the States of the 
central West, the mistake of sixty years 
ago continues as a mockery to the high 
prerogative of citizenship. 

Perhaps an even more flagrant incon- 
sistency was enacted in our neighboring 
State of Ohio. During the sixties, several 
years after the Civil War, an amendment 
to the constitution to strike out the word 
"white" was submitted to popular vote 
and defeated by over 50,000. On the very 
heels of this popular rejection of negro 
suffrage the vote of Ohio was recorded in 
favor of the fifteenth amendment, estab- 
lishing negro suffrage in every State in the 
Union — including the entire mass of 
ignorant ex-slaves in the cotton States of 
the South. A more flagrant assault upon 
intelligent voting never was perpetrated 
in this or any other country. To cap the 
climax, just as soon as the fraudulent 
ratification of the fifteenth amendment 
was officially proclaimed, the very party 
that had brought about the prostitution of 
the ballot passed an act by Congress ab- 
solutely abolishing the right of suffrage 
in the District of Columbia by making all 
municipal offices appointive by a commis- 
sion designated by the President. This 
action was prompted by the fact that Ayith 
the aid of disreputable whites in the city 
of Washington negro domination could 
and doubtless would have been established 
at the capital of the Nation. Such an in- 
novation would, in the eyes of the Jacobins 

then in control of the legislative branch of 
the Government, have been entirely in 
order in Louisiana, South Carolina, 
Florida and Mississippi, but was adjudged 
intolerable in the District of Columbia. 

No ism has ever failed to find champions 
and supporters, no matter how absurd it 
may have been, measured by any standard 
of reasoning or common sense. 

Recall the commotion caused by the Rev. 
William Miller of Vermont during the 
early forties, when he issued his statement 
that he had received a divine command to 
announce the second coming of Christ 
about the year 1843 — how many people de- 
voted all their time to preparing them- 
selves for the ascension to heaven in white 
robes, sacrificing their property, and do- 
ing all manner of foolish things. Cogitate 
over the folly of owners of orchards chop- 
ping down their apple trees during the 
Washingtonian crusade against liquor so 
as to guard against the product of the 
orchard being converted into cider. Be- 
hold the thousands of beguiled men and 
women following "Divine Healer" Schlat- 
ter from day to day and professing to have 
been freed of all manner of diseases and 
ailments by simply touching the raiment 
of that shrewd impostor. Contemplate 
for a moment the large number of dupes 
who poured their shekels into the capa- 
cious receptacles of the Illinois charlatan, 
John G. Schweinfurth, who by artful 
methods made himself appear as an image 
of Christ. Peruse the statistics emanat- 
ing from several of the governmental de- 
partments at Washington setting forth 
how vigilant officials in the service of 
Uncle Sam had in a single year saved gul- 
lible men and women more than one hun- 
dred and eighteen million dollars. Imag- 
ine for a moment the insecurity of life and 
property if for a single day or week the 
protecting arm of the law's vigilant and 
faithful sentinels were off duty. All this 
furnishes ample reason why there is so 
much "wobbling" wherever and whenever 

( 138) 


glib-tongued charlatans and unscrupulous 
demagogues manage to get the ear of the 
dear people. And thereby is furnished 
cogent reason why safe, sound, trust- 
worthy leadership is so much needed in 
every locality, in every village and ham- 
let, in every town and city, in every county 
and district — a leadership that instills 
wholesome sentiment into the public mind 
and furnishes incentive to right-thinking 
and right-doing ; a leadership, not for self- 
aggrandizement and spoliation, but a lead- 
ership whose chief purpose and highest 
aim is to promote the general welfare and 
to foster the common good. Such leader- 
ship does not go upon the assumption that 
politics is the science of getting 51 per 
cent, of the votes by hook or crook. It has 
a higher conception of politics. It believes 
in honesty being the best policy and in 
right making might. 

In the maddening race for building up 
large centers of population — big cities — 
too many people forget all about the notes 
of warning sounded by Jefferson. That 
wise patriot and far-seeing statesman 
more than a hundred years ago described 
large cities as being "pestilential to the 
morals, the health and the liberties of 
men." Several of the New England States, 
recognizing the soundness of the Jeffer- 
sonian view, safeguarded themselves 
against the pernicious effects of such 
massing together by rendering it impossi- 
ble for large cities to gain the mastery in 
legislative assemblies and thus control the 
domestic policies of these commonwealths. 
The Empire State of the Union inserted a 
clause in its constitution making it im- 
possible for the city of New York to gain 
the ascendancy in the General Assembly, 
no matter how greatly its number of in- 
habitants might exceed that of the rest of 
the State. A Senator, discussing this 
feature of legislative apportionment, made 
bold to declare that in his opinion a typical 
country gentleman in the interior of New 
York ought by right to count for as much 

as at least a half-dozen dwellers in the 
slums of the Bowery. And no one in that 
body took issue with this Senator on that 
proposition. The people of Indiana will 
be amenable to the charge of gross indif- 
ference to the State's highest intere.sts if 
they do not in good time safeguard them- 
selves in .some way against being dom- 
inated by large centers of population. The 
history of the world amply verifies the 
declaration of Dr. Francis E. Clark that 
"no Nation was ever overthrown by its 
farmers." Let the so-called rural popula- 
tion and the inhabitants of the thrifty 
towns and smaller cities bear in mind that 
if popular delusion should ever succeed 
in foisting upon this Commonwealth a 
State-wide primary election law it would 
be easily within the power of the five larg- 
er cities to control, through combination, 
the nomination of every candidate on the 
State ticket. The powerful influence of 
money in politics is so demoralizing and 
pernicious that its destructive effects are 
quickly felt wherever exerted to any con- 
siderable extent. With clear vision the 
sturdy New England patriot, Samuel 
Adams, espied what was coming when in 
1789 he gave expression to this pregnant 
thought : "We have achieved a great lib- 
erty ; we have wrought out a great consti- 
tution ; but my only fear is that our people, 
who are now poor and simple and love lib- 
erty because they have made sacrifices for 
it, will after a while grow rich and will 
prefer their riches to their liberty." 

Fittingly there may be added to this 
verified apprehension the recent lamenta- 
tion of the venerable Dr. Abraham 
Kuyper, ex-premier of the Netherlands 
and advisor to Queen Wilhelmina: "The 
world has mocked God ! The nations have 
forgotten and ignored Him. Even in 
Christian circles there were departures 
from Him that ruleth over earth and .skies. 
And now this God, mocked, forgotten and 
ignored, fills the hearts of men with terror. 
The mightiest among them tremble." 

[Chapter XVIIL] 



ONVENTION— literally, a com- 
ing together — derives its pol- 
itico-social meaning from the 
old Roman "Conveetu populi" 
— the gathering of the people. 
It is applied to extraordinary, 
or, at least, occasional gather- 
ings, rather than to the regular and more 
frequent meetings. Thus, a fraternal so- 
ciety has its local lodges and meetings, but 
the larger conventions occur only once in 
one or more years ; and a State has annual 
or biennial sessions of its Legislature, but 
its constitutional conventions are far 

In nations wherein the ultimate sov- 
ereignty is vested in the people, the con- 
vention is the method by which this sov- 
ereignty is peacefully exerted; the people 
either directly or through delegates tak- 
ing matters into their own hands and at 
their pleasure modifying or entirely 
changing the form of government. Polit- 
ical economists recognize two classes of 
these conventions — the I'evolutionary, 
which alters the form, and the recon- 
structive, which only amends it. Of the 
former class are the "Constituent Assem- 
blies" of France. The first which grew 
out of the assembling of the State's gen- 
erals overthrew the monarchy and pro- 
claimed a Republic; and there have been 
ten others since, making of France in al- 
terations an empire, kingdom and repub- 
lic back and forth. England has had three 
conventions. The first was at Runnymede, 
when the assembled barons reconstructed 
the government so as to limit the power of 
the king ; the second was the revolutionary 
convention in 1660 which set aside the 
Commonwealth and recalled Charles the 
Second to the throne ; the third was the re- 

constructive convention of 1689, which, 
assuming the kingdom in existence though 
the king was in exile, called William of 
Orange to reign conjointly with Mary his 
wife, but placed additional restraints upon 
the royal prerogatives. 

In this country there have been many 
conventions of both kinds. At the very 
time the English convention was calling 
William and Mary to the throne, the 
Massachusetts colony was holding a revo- 
lutionary convention which deposed Gov- 
ernor Andros, overthrew the government 
he had set up and restored the Charter 
rights. Immediately preceding the war 
for Independence, several of the colonies, 
separately, or working together, held con- 
ventions of the revolutionary character, 
all tending to a change of government. 
The Continental Congress that issued the 
Declaration of Independence was a perfect 
example of the revolutionary convention. 

The convention which framed the Fed- 
eral Constitution was reconstructive. It 
did not attempt to change the essential 
principles of the Government, but only "to 
form a more perfect Union." In the order- 
ly development of our Nation, the conven- 
tions which formed the first constitutions 
of the several States may be termed revo- 
lutionary, inasmuch as they change the 
government from territorial to State, 
while the successive conventions that 
amend the constitutions are reconstruct- 
ive, because, although they change details, 
they leave the general structure undis- 

At present the most common use of the 
term "convention" is in connection with 
political parties — particularly the declara- 
tion of their principles and the nomination 
of their candidates. It has been seen that 


in the earliest years of the Republic no 
conventions were held or needed, so far 
as national affairs were concerned. The 
views of the Federalists and Anti-Federal- 
ists were known by the position they took 
on the Constitution, and the platform of 
the Republican party was embodied in 
Jefferson's letter to Washington. As to 
candidates, there were none but Washing- 
ton, until he retired, and then Jefferson 
and Adams were universally recognized as 
representatives of their respective parties. 
In State elections there was a very com- 
mon assent that the members of the Legis- 
lature, having been chosen by the people, 
might very properly gather in caucus or 
convention to name the candidates. By 
analogy the same practice was transferred 
to Congress in the matter of naming candi- 
dates for President. These legislative and 
congressional caucuses, as they were 
called, were in reality reconstructive con- 
ventions, in which the legislators, acting 
as delegates for the rank and file of their 
respective political parties, named the can- 
didates for their support. It was not until 
the caucus, becoming a "close corpora- 
tion," had been made the instrument for 
the accoijiplishment of selfish purposes, 
that the people overthrew it and estab- 
lished the later system — conventions con- 
stituted for the sole purpose of formulat- 
ing party principles and nominating can- 

The earliest of these conventions were 
decidedly revolutionary. Some of them 
took the form of mass meetings and im- 
promptu gatherings, and they all resulted 
in overturning the old order of things and 
in the organization of new parties. The 
first made Jackson President and formed 
the Democratic party. Then in 1832 a 
convention presented the anti-Mason party 
to the country, and two or three years 
later the Whig party was similarly 
brought into being. In 1855-6 the second 
Republican party was formed by a series 
of revolutionary conventions, very similar 

in character to those which brought forth 
the Democratic party nearly a third of a 
century earlier. All the "third parties" 
have had their beginnings in the same 

After the political party is organized, 
the conventions that formulate its prin- 
ciples and nominate its candidates are re- 
constructive. They pass resolutions and 
put forth platforms to adapt the party 
policy to new conditions that arise, and 
they seek to nominate candidates that will 
meet the popular approval. 

For all these purposes the convention is 
the ideal method. Properly constituted, it 
represents the whole body. Its "coming 
together" is not simply the physical meet- 
ing of the delegates; it is a commingling 
of minds. It furnishes an opportunity for 
comparison of views and discussion of men 
and measures which ought to result in the 
wisest possible action. When the political 
unit for which the convention acts is small 
the whole body of electors may "come to- 
gether." Such were the New England 
town meetings copied into several States. 
There the people got together, talked over 
the public needs, debated questions of 
policy, discussed the fitness of candidates, 
and finally passed upon all the measures, 
and elected the officials for the ensuing 
terms — a sort of constitutional convention, 
legislative body and electoral college 
blended in one. 

But with greater population and larger 
units of territory, the direct action of the 
electors became impossible, and the dele- 
gate body a necessity. 

While the nominating convention re- 
tained its original and proper character of 
representing its constituents and seeking 
to promote their best interests, it was a 
powerful instrument for good in the polit- 
ical party. It combined the wisdom of all 
into unified action. 

But abuses arose. The selfishness of 
party backers seeking personal advantage 
rather than the good Of either party or 



country, led them to attempt the control 
of conventions. Too often, notably so in 
localities where a nomination is equivalent 
to an election, they succeeded. By means 
of "snap caucuses" and corruption of 
delegates they subverted the will of the 
people and "bossed" the convention, mak- 
ing it subservient to their own ends. This 
state of affairs has existed to a far greater 
extent in the Republican than in the Dem- 
ocratic party, by reason of the fact that 
the former, until a few years ago, has had 
much more to do .with the distribution of 
the loaves and fishes than the latter. Un- 
fortunately, a deplorably large number of 
voters has come to regard the distribution 
of loaves and fishes as the chief function 
of party organization. 

Naturally the people revolted and the 
convention fell into disrepute. Hence a 
substitute has been sought in the primary 
elections. But this is a cumbrous method. 
It leaves out entirely the consultations and 
discussions which were the foundation of 
the convention's strength. Then, too, the 
primary election is not free from the de- 
fect which lies at the bottom of boss con- 
trol of the convention — the indifference of 
the people except on extraordinary occa- 

If the people would turn out at the 
caucuses and elect proper delegates to the 
convention, control by corrupt bosses could 

not occur, and experience so far indicates 
that the voters are just as indifferent in 
the ordinary primary election. The "short 
ballot" which restricts the elective offices 
to a few may be a remedy, by giving the 
people a little better chance to know what 
they are doing instead of leaving them to 
vote in the dark, as most have to at pres- 
ent. But the real cure of all the evils of 
representative government is an alert, in- 
telligent electorate, and the best way for 
it to act is through the properly consti- 
tuted conventions. 

The customs and instincts of the Ameri- 
can people tend toward the placing of 
representatives between themselves and 
the selection of their candidates. When- 
ever a prirriary election law runs counter 
to this instinct it becomes null and void in 
some way or other. The people will get 
around it by conferences or "unofficial" 
conventions. The underlying common 
sense of the electorate demands the con- 
sultation and discussion of platforms and 
candidates, which can be secured only in 
a delegate convention. It is proper that 
such convention be safeguarded as far as 
possible against corrupt or selfish control, 
but the surest safeguard is to be* found in 
a patriotic electorate, vigilant and intelli- 
gent in selecting the delegates that consti- 
tute the convention. 

( 143 ) 

[Chapter XIX.] 



HE Indiana Democracy met in 
State convention at Indiana- 
polis February 24, 1852. 
Colonel A. C. Pepper of Ohio 
county was made tempoi-ary 
chairman and C. S. Horton of 
Switzerland county temporary 

A committee on permanent organization 
having been selected, its recommendation 
of the following-named permanent officers 
was unanimously approved by the conven- 

President — Judge Thomas L. Smith, of 
Floyd county. 

Vice-Presidents — Ethan Allen Brown, 
Ohio; Gamaliel Taylor, Jefferson; Wm. 
Rockhill, Allen; Z. Tannehill, Bartholo- 

Secretaries — James Elder, Wayne; John 
B. Norman, Floyd; Austin H. Brown, 
Marion. (These three gentlemen were 
editors of influential Democratic news- 

Robert Dale Owen presented this reso- 
lution, which was unanimously adopted 
amidst vociferous applause : 

"Resolved, That this convention nom- 
inate as Democratic candidate for Gov- 
ernor for the next term, Joseph A. 

For Lieutenant-Governor, Ashbel P. 
Willard of New Albany was nominated by 
practical unanimity. 

The remainder of the State ticket was 
made to consist of these selections : 

Secretary of State — Nehemiah Hayden, 

Auditor of State— John P. Dunn, Perry. 

State Treasurer — Elijah Newland, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction — 
W. C. Larabee, Putnam. 

Supreme Judges — Wm. Z. Stuart, Cass; 
Andrew Davidson, Decatur; Samuel E. 
Perkins, Marion; Addison L. Roach, 

Editorially, the Iiulianapolis Sentinel 
spoke in these commendatory terms of the 
action of the convention : 

"Our present popular Governor is the 
Democratic nominee. He has resided in 
the State thirty-five years. Unaided by 
wealth, influence or name, he has risen 
from the humble bricklayer — the orphan 
boy — to his present position. At twenty- 
two he entered the State Legislature as a 
Representative from Parke county. He 
served one term in the State Senate, and 
afterwards as a member of Congress from 
the Vigo district. Elected to his present 
position over his popular and worthy com- 
petitor by a majority of 9,778, he is again 
presented for the suffrages of the people 
of Indiana. His name is a tower of 
strength. The hearts of the people are 
with him and for him. The young Whig 
lawyers with sleek heads and flowing 
beards may denounce him with their 
vituperation and abuse to their heart's con- 
tent. The honest farmers and working 
men are with him." 

The compensation of State officers in 
those days was certainly moderate. In a 
speech delivered in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, May 19, Robert Dale Owen 
recommended that the annual salaries be 
fixed at these figures: Governor, $1,500; 
Supreme Judges, $1,200; Circuit Judges, 
$1,200; State officers, $1,200; Librarian, 
$700. This was an increase of $200 each 
in the salaries of eighteen officers and 
much less than the maximum talked of at 
the time, which was. Governor, $2,500, etc. 




With pardonable pride, the Indianapolis 
Sentinel pointed to the splendid record 
made by Governors Whitcomb and Wright 
in extricating the State from the financial 
dilemma into which it had fallen under 
Whig administration. Here is a sample of 
the Sentinel's encomiums : 

"When the Democrats were called to ad- 
minister the State government, her credit 
was prostrated ; no interest was paid upon 
her debt, and so dark and gloomy was the 
future that the fearful thought of repudia- 
tion was springing up in various parts of 
the State. The State debt was then almost 
$17,000,000 and the interest was increas- 
ing with fearful rapidity. But look at the 
change which eight years has made. The 
State now owes less than $7,400,000; her 
■ credit is sustained in every market and the 
dark thought of repudiation has given 
place to the bright hopes of freedom from 
indebtedness. $2,424,000 has been paid m 
money, and in redeeming the outstandmg 
scrip from circulation, the remainder by 
the transfer of the Wabash and Erie 


On the night of the convention the Hon. 
Ethan Allen Brown, when returning to 
the evening session, fell over an obstruc- 
tion and inj ured his hand. He was obliged 
to leave the convention and return to his 
hotel. His hand continuing to bleed, a 
physician was summoned, and shortly 
after his arrival Mr. Brown died. Death 
was caused by the bursting of a blood ves- 
sel. Mr. Brown had just been chosen as 
delegate-at-large to the National Conven- 
tion at Baltimore. 

For the State-at-Large : John Pettit, 
Tippecanoe; James H. Lane, Dearborn. 
Contingents : Dr. W. F. Sherrod, Orange ; 
John W. Dodd, Grant. 


1. Benjamin R. Edmonston, Dubois county. 

2. James A. Athon, Clark. 

3. John A. Hendricks, Jefferson. 

EMOCRACY — 1816-1916 

4. Ebenezer Dumont, Dearborn. 

5. William Grose, Henry. 

6. William J. Brown, Marion. 

7. Oliver P. Davis, Vermillion. 

8. Lorenzo C. Dougherty, Boone. 

9. Samuel A. Hall, Cass. 

10. Reuben J. Dawson, DeKalb. 

11. James F. McDowell, Grant. 


Ethan Allen Brown Ohio 

John W. Davis Sullivan 

W. J. Brown Marion 

John S. Buckles Delaware 

W. W. McCoy Laporte 

Michael G. Bright Jefferson 

A. G. Porter, C. G. Werbe, 

David Reynolds, N. Bolton, 
L. Dunlap, Francis King, 

Wm. H. Morrison, J. P. Drake, 
Albert Gall, W. J. Brown. 


Governor Wright never was and never 
could be a champion of the institution of 
slavery. But he was at the same time a 
conservative as to the manner of dealing 
with the slave question. He recognized the 
fact that slavery existed when the Union 
was formed; that its existence was recog- 
nized by law, and that under the law slave- 
holders had rights that could neither be 
ignored nor violated with impunity. His 
chief concern at that time was to preserve 
the peace and to avert sectional strife. In 
order that his attitude with reference to 
the then pending issues might be fully un- 
derstood, he declared himself thus in a 
statement published in the Sentinel of De- 
cember 5, 1851 : 

"Indiana holds him an enemy to the 
wellrbeing of this Republic who pursues 
any course tending to widen the breach be- 
tween the North and the South. Minor 
questions sink into insignificance com- 
pared to the great paramount duty of 
every American citizen, the preservation 
and integrity of the American Union. 

"Each and all of the laws constituting 
that compromise which has been as oil 
cast upon the troubled waters are assented 

( 146) 


1 6 - 1 9 1 G 

to and have been carried out so far as they 
apply to us, in word and letter, according 
to the strictest judicial construction, by 
citizens of our State. This has been cor- 
dially and with as near an approach to 
hearty unanimity as any measure enacted 
to reconcile similar sectional differences 
can ever be expected to receive. 

"Indiana desires to see the compromise 
made under the Constitution and expressly 
framed to carry into effect its provisions, 
remain undisturbed. We say to the South, 
as well as to the North, that these meas- 
ures must stand — that this sectional con- 
troversy must not again be opened up — 
that time is an element which enters into 
everything that is valuable, must test their 
wisdom of efficacy — that from whatever 
quarter of the Union efforts shall be made 
to revive this sectional agitation, Indiana 
is against it. 

"Nor will she by her votes countenance 
those who favor the opening afresh in any 
manner, under any pretense, the questions 
so recently and so happily disposed of — 
let us hope forever. Our duty is plain ; 
abide by the past, sustain the measures 
faithfully, cease agitation and trust for the 
future to the intelligence and patriotism of 
the people under the guidance of Provi- 

This doubtless accurately expressed the 
sentiment of a vast majority of Indiana's 
inhabitants, with but few exceptions. The 
radical anti-slavery element represented 
by George W. Julian had no notable 
strength outside the Julian district. Dem- 
ocrats and Whigs were in entire accord 
with Governor Wright's views, as set forth 
in the foregoing declaration. 


Prior to the convening of the Demo- 
cratic State Convention in February, pub- 
lic expression was given to a pronounced 
sentiment in favor of making Robert Dale 
Owen Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
tion. A strong editorial on that sub- 
ject appeared in the Louisville Jour- 
nal, then edited by Geo. D. Prentice. 
In this editorial were set forth va- 
rious cogent reasons why, in the 
opinion of Mr. Prentice, Indiana should 

place at the head of its educational inter- 
ests a man of Mr. Owen's superior qualifi- 
cations. This article was reproduced in 
the Sentinel with favorable comment. The 
publication of these commendatory refer- 
ences to Mr. Owen prompted that gentle- 
man to declare, in a communication 
printed in the Sentinel of December 23, 
that "on account of private arrangements 
connected with his duties to his family 
he could not be a candidate for the office of 
Superintendent of Public Instruction at 
the February convention." In the same 
letter he protested vigorously the 
exclusion of ministers of the gospel from 
school positions, saying the schools are 
"secular and not religious in.stitutions." 
He also objected emphatically to any ex- 
clusion being made on account of any par- 
ticular religion. The latter objection was 
evoked by the rising spirit of Know- 
Nothingism that had taken strong hold in 
some of the larger cities of the Union. 


This trite saying was strikingly ex- 
emplified in the earlier period of political 
contention. Judge Turpie had some such 
experiences when he engaged in joint dis- 
cussions with some of his competitors. But 
perhaps the most notable of these close as- 
sociations was that unctuously related by 
one of the candidates for Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor in 1852. The rival aspirants for this 
office were A-shbel P. Willard of New Al- 
bany and "Billy" Williams of Warsaw. 
Both were remarkably effective stump 
speakers. Willard was highly educated 
and an ideal orator. Williams was de- 
ficient in education, but irresistible as a 
natural orator before a popular audience. 
During the seventies, when representing 
the Tenth district in Congress, "Billy" told 
the writer of the time he had with Willard 
while going through the arduous task of 
a series of joint discussions. One of these 
wordy combats took place in a locality 


where hotel accommodations were scant, divest himself of his coat, then of his col- 
It became necessary for these two distin- lar, then of his vest. One afternoon he 
guished disputants to occupy the same was making a speech in a Quaker settle- 
bed. Both were jolly good fellows. Not- ment. It began to rain. People put up 
withstanding the fact that they belabored their umbrellas, but, enchanted by Wil- 
one another at a lively rate in their fiery lard's oratory, they stayed and eagerly 
speeches, a strong personal friendship had drank in the words as they fell from his 
sprung up between them. "Both of us felt eloquent lips. As the rain descended 
tired," the inimitable Billy said in the thicker and heavier, the orator stopped 
course of his narrative, "so it wasn't long abruptly, appealing to his audience to ad- 
after we had gone to bed that Willard be- journ the meeting. With astonishing 
gan to snore in stentorian tones. Pretty unanimity the crowd shouted, 'No, go on !' 
soon he would turn over, throw his leg Speaking was renewed. The audience was 
over me and exclaim, 'Billy, of all the au- spell-bound. Three times Willard appealed 
dacious liars I ever encountered, you are to his hearers to bring the meeting to a 
entitled to be enrolled on top of the list.' close. To each request the audience thun- 
Complacently falling asleep, repeating his ^e^ed back an emphatic No! Straighten- 
snoring with reinforced vigor, and again j^^^ ^-^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^-^ f^U ^^-^^^^ ^jU^^d 
throwing his leg over me, he drawled out, exclaimed: 'The more rain, the more 
'Billy, how can you stand up before an m- ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^ 

telligent audience and unfold yourself as r,- n 4.1, -r* 4. t +> 

„,. o, A • • • V more whisky, the more Democrats. Leter 

a very prince of liars? Again giving him- . „,.„ ,„.,.,. , ,, . 

self over to the sleep of the righteous, ^^^^^ Willard finished his speech. Most 

Willard soon again unconsciously set his «f his hearers were soaked by the ram, but 

snoring apparatus in motion. For the they considered themselves amply compen- 

third time he threw his leg over me, this sated for the discomfort experienced by 

time accompanying that performance with the matchless oratory of their nominee for 

this tribute to my veracity : 'Well, Billy, Lieutenant-Governor." 

you are without doubt the sleekest liar I As the inimitable and incomparably 

have ever come across.' How many times good-natured "Billy" related these in- 

he reiterated these testimonials during the cidents in his political career his coun- 

night I am unable to say. I was tired, ex- Penance was illuminated as if he had been 

hausted, and became oblivious to all that reminded of one of the most pleasing 

happened or didn't happen during that ^^^j^^g ^^ j^jg ^fg 

memorable night of joint bed occupancy. ^^^ campaign made by Governor 

When we got up m the morning there were ^ ^^^ ^^ ^.^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^.j,.^^^ 

no signs of anything unpleasant having , ^ ,. r,^, ,.. 

occurred. Continuing our battle of words, ^"^ effective. The result was a sweeping 

we fought it out to the bitter end. Willard Democratic victory, as attested by the offi- 

had the satisfaction of beating me by a cial figures : 

little over 15,000, while I had the satisfac- Pqjj qovernor. 

tion of doing considerably better than the j^^^^^ ^ ^^.^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ' 93 ^^g 

head of the ticket, who was defeated by Nicholas McCarty, Whig 73,641 

over 19,000. Yes, those were great days, Andrew L. Robinson, Freesoiler 3,303 

with great doings. As a public speaker he ^^^ LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR, 
was simply a wonder. He preferred out- 

door to indoor speaking. When he got 4^.^bel P-^,^illard, Democrat 90,239 

^ " \Vilham Williams, Whig 75,094 

warmed up to his subject he would first j^^es P. Milliken, Freesoiler 3,086 



MAJORITIES FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATES, test over the admission of Kansas into the 

Secretary of State— Nehemiah Hayden 15,134 Union ; located in the city of Indianapolis 

Auditor of state— John p. Dunn 15,916 during the Civil War; engaged in bank- 
Treasurer of State-Elijah Newland 16,702 jng. became president of the First Na- 

Supt. of Public Instruction— W. C. Larabee. 15,851 x-,tji -jjj-u^ 

Supreme Judges- Wm. Z. Stuart 14,961 i^""^' ^^"^^ ' ^'^^'^ ^^e Government in a 

Andrew Davidson 14,212 financial way. In 1880 he developed Pres- 

Samuel E. Perkins 11,545 idential aspirations, but the state conven- 

Addison L. Roach 12,985 tion instructed the delegation to the Cin- 

Not only did the Democrats elect every cinnati convention steadfastly to support 
candidate on their State ticket by decisive Thomas A. Hendricks. Four years before 
majorities, but they secured a good work- Mr. English earnestly and energetically 
ing majority in both Houses of the Legis- supported Tilden and Hendricks. Upon 
lature. In this body they had 34 Senators the nomination of General Winfield Scott 
and 57 Representatives. Of the eleven Hancock to the Presidency, Mr. English 
members of Congress they secured ten. was nominated for Vice-President. He re- 
The only Whig nominee that escaped de- tained the chairmanship of the Democratic 
feat was Samuel W. Parker, in the Fifth State Committee and conducted a system- 
district. The delegation to the Thirty- atic campaign. Though considerable en- 
third Congress was made up of these dis- thusiasm was aroused in behalf of Han- 
tinguished gentlemen : cock and English, the disappointment of 

1. Smith Miller, Patoka. Democrats who had demanded the renom- 

2. Wm. H. English, Lexington. ination of the ticket of 1876 was felt so 

3. Cyrus L. Dunham, Valley Farm. keenly that the Indiana Democracy went 

4. James H. Lane, Lawrenceburg. down in defeat both in October and in No- 

5. Samuel W. Parker, Connersville vember. Mr. English had become one of 

6. Thomas A. Hendricks, Shelbyville. j.i. oi j. , i^i • ^ ,,.,,,. 

7. John W. Davis, Rockville. ^^e State s wealthiest men, and died at his 

8. Daniel Mace, Lafayette. home in Indianapolis, February 7, 1896. 

9. Norman Eddy, South Bend. His SOU, William E., during the eighties 

10. Ebenezer M. Chamberlain, Goshen. served part of a term in Congress. The 

11. Andrew J. Harlan, Marion. fj.^^ gjl^g^ jg^^g j^^ jggg ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^_ 

Smith Miller was born in North Caro- after to affiliate with the Republicans. 
Una, May 30, 1804; engaged in farming at james Henry Lane was born in Law- 
Patoka, Gibson county, Indiana; served as renceburg, Ind., June 22, 1814; attended 
member of the Legislature and was twice the public schools; studied law, was ad- 
elected to Congress. Died near Patoka, fitted to the bar in 1840, and began prac- 
March 21, 1872. ^-jce in Lawrenceburg; member of the City 

William Hayden English was the third Council; served in the Mexican war; 

native Indianian to be elected to Congress. Colonel of the Third Indiana Volunteers, 

Born m Lexington, Scott county, August June 25, 1846 ; mustered out June 24, 1847 ; 

27, 1822; pursued classical studies in the recommissioned Colonel of the Fifth In- 

University of Hanover; studied law and diana Infantry October 22, 1847 ; mustered 

was admitted to the bar in 1846; principal ^^^^ j^,y ^g^ 1348; appointed Brigadier- 

clerk ot the Indiana House of Representa- ^ ^ ^ ^r ^ 1. ^ • • .1 

,. . ,_.„ 1 1 • iu rp T^ General of Volunteers for service in the 

tives in 1843; clerk in the Treasury De- „. •, ,ir t~> . ,0 -.r,,.-. j 

v^„,^-w,„„f of Wo I,; f^„ -mAA 10A0 Civil War December 18, 1861, and ap- 

partment at Washington, 1844-1848 ; secre- . , , ,,,,,'. 

tary of the Indiana Constitutional Conven- Pomtment was canceled March 21, 1862 ; 

tion in 1850 ; four times elected to Con- elected Lieutenant-Governor 1849 ; elected 

gress as a Democrat, serving from 1853 to as a Democrat to the Thirty-third Con- 

1861 ; took a conspicuous part in the con- gress (March 4, 1853-March 3, 1855); 



-19 16 

moved to Kansas Territory in 1855 ; mem- 
ber of the Topeka Constitutional Conven- 
tion; elected to the United States Senate 
by the Legislature that convened under 
the Topeka Constitution in 1856, but the 
election was not recognized by the United 
States Senate; president of the Leaven- 
worth Constitutional Convention of 1857; 
elected as a Republican to the United 
States Senate in 1861, and re-elected in 
1865, and served until his death by suicide 
near Fort Leavenworth, Kan., July 11, 

Norman Eddy was born in Scipio, N. Y., 
December 10, 1810; was graduated from 
the medical department of the University 
of Pennsylvania in 1835 ; went to Indiana 
and located in Mishawaka and practiced 
medicine there until 1847; studied law, 
moved to South Bend in 1847 and prac- 
ticed law ; State Senator in 1850 ; held sev- 
eral local offices ; elected as a Democrat to 

the Thirty-third Congress (March 4, 1853- 
March 3, 1855) ; defeated for re-election; 
Colonel of the Forty-eighth Indiana Regi- 
ment of Volunteers during the Civil War ; 
Collector of Internal Revenue 1865-1870; 
elected Secretary of State in 1870. Died 
in Indianapolis, January 28, 1872. 

Ebenezer Mattoon Chamberlain was 
born in Orrington, Me., August 20, 1805; 
attended the public schools; studied law; 
moved to Connersville, Ind., in 1832, 
where he completed his studies; was ad-' 
mitted to the bar and commenced practice 
in Elkhart county in 1833 ; member of the 
State House of Representatives in 1835- 
1837; judge of the Elkhart Circuit Court 
for nine years; elected as a Democrat to 
the Thirty-third Congress (March 4, 1853- 
March 3, 1855) ; was strongly opposed to 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise ; re- 
sumed the practice of law in Goshen. 
Died there March 14, 1861. 

( n>o ) 

[Chapter XX.] 



HILE the Indiana Democratic 
Convention held at Indiana- 
polis, February 24, did not 
specifically instruct its dele- 
gates to the National Conven- 
tion, as usual, held in Balti- 
jd| more, June 1, 1852, it adopted 
with the utmost unanimity these resolu- 
tions : 

"Resolved, That Joseph Lane, the State 
legislator, the gallant general, the Terri- 
torial Governor, tried in the council cham- 
ber, tried in the tented fields, tried in the 
executive chair, and never found granting, 
is, of the people of Indiana, the first choice 
for the Presidency. While we repose en- 
tire confidence alike in his administrative 
capacity, in his firmness, in his honesty of 
purpose and in his unswerving devotion 
to Democratic principles, at the same time 
desiring above all things union and har- 
mony in the support of the nominee of the 
National Convention, let the choice of the 
majority fall as it will, and fully trusting 
the judgment and devotion to principles 
of our delegates to that convention. 

"Resolved further, That we leave said 
delegates untrammeled by instructions as 
to persons to act as their convictions of 
right and propriety at the time may dic- 

"Resolved, however, That in casting the 
vote of the State for President, the said 
delegates be instructed to give it, through- 
out, as a unit and not by separate dis- 
tricts ; the name of the person so voted for 
to be at all times determined by the ma- 
jority of the votes of said delegates. 

"Resolved, That if General Joseph 
Lane be the Democratic nominee for Pres- 
ident of the National Convention, we 
pledge to him the vote of Indiana — of that 
State the honor of whose sons he has so 
nobly vindicated — by a majority, as we 
confidently hope and truly believe, of 
25,000 votes." 

It is worthy of special mention that 
these resolutions were reported by an ex- 

ceptionally strong committee of which the 
renowned Robert Dale Owen was chair- 
man and Oliver P. Morton a conspicuous 
member from the "Quaker district." 
Four years later the same Morton headed 
the first Republican State ticket as its 
nominee for Governor, and ten years later 
Robert Dale Owen was credited with hav- 
ing furnished the strongest argument sub- 
mitted to President Lincoln in support of 
the urgent appeal that he issue a procla- 
mation for the emancipation of four mil- 
lion slaves. At this very convention both 
Owen and Morton expressed the utmost 
satisfaction over the various compromises 
entered into to propitiate the slave power 
and condemning all further agitation that 
might in any way disturb harmonious re- 
lations between North and South. 

Upon one of Indiana's delegates-at- 
large. Congressman John W. Davis, was 
conferred the distinguished honor of be- 
ing selected as permanent chairman of 
the convention. And very creditably did 
Dr. Davis acquit himself in that position. 
He, with a number of other delegates, 
loyally supported General Lane for the 
Presidential nomination, but at heart 
these gentlemen were for Stephen A. 
Douglas. When the balloting showed 
steady gains for "The Little Giant," the 
Indiana delegation abandoned Lane and 
went over to Cass as a compromise. Par- 
ticularly active in behalf of General Lane 
was Congressman John L. Robinson, ably 
aided by the Brights. These gentlemen 
were especially hostile to Senator Douglas, 
whose defeat was of far greater impor- 
tance to them than the nomination of any 
one of the other aspirants, except Lane. 

All the signs of the times pointed un- 


erringly to signal Democratic victories in 
1852, both in Indiana and the country at 
large. This in itself was an incentive to 
extraordinary effort in behalf of the lead- 
ing candidates and accounts for the tenac- 
ity with which their supporters adhered 
to the favorite sons from various parts of 
the Union. The friends of General Cass, 
convinced that the battle in 1848 was lost 
through no fault of his but rendered in- 
evitable on account of the colossal blunder 
committed in inciting the friends of Mar- 
tin Van Buren to open revolt, were espe- 
cially solicitous that the Michigan states- 
man be afforded another opportunity in a 
fairer race and under more auspicious 
circumstances. But the decree of fate 
determined otherwise. General Cass de- 
veloped considerable strength, but the 
persistent efforts of the followers of Bu- 
chanan, Douglas and Marcy made it im- 
possible to bring his vote beyond the 131 
point. Thirty-three times the Indiana 
delegation cast its vote solidly for General 
Joseph Lane, but throughout that ballot- 
ing only one delegate from some other 
State came to his support. The name of 
Franklin Pierce had not been mentioned 
until the thirty-fifth ballot. He started 
then with 15 votes, rose to 30 on the next, 
then dropped to 29, and stayed at that 
through eight ballots. Then he rose to 
44, 49, 55, then came the stampede that 
gave him nearly the entire vote of the con- 
vention and secured his triumphant nom- 

Inasmuch as Joseph Lane was the first 
Indiana Democrat presented for a Presi- 
dential nomination, a brief review of his 
eventful career would seem to be de- 
manded. He was a native of Buncombe 
county, North Carolina, where he was 
born in the year 1801. In 1814 his father's 
family emigrated to Kentucky, and two 
years afterward crossed the Ohio river 
and located in Warrick county, Indiana. 
Alternately young Lane worked in the 
county clerk's office and in a dry goods 

store. Before he was twenty-one years 
old he was elected to the Legislature, and 
he had to wait until he became of age be- 
fore he could take his seat. For over 
twenty-five years he served the State as a 
member of either the House of Repre- 
sentatives or the Senate of the Indiana 
Legislature. When the Mexican war 
broke out he resigned his seat in the State 
Senate, where he was then serving, and 
joined the command of Captain Walker 
as a private. When the Second Indiana 
Regiment was organized he was made 
Colonel, and on July 1, 1846, he was made 
Brigadier-General by President Polk. 
During the war he served with distinction 
under Taylor and Scott and he com- 
manded at the battle of Huamantla. Soon 
after the close of the war he was ap- 
pointed by President Polk Governor of 
the Territory of Oregon. In 1850 he was 
removed from that office by President 
Taylor, but the next year was elected as a 
delegate from Oregon to Congress and 
continued as such until the State was ad- 
mitted to the Union, when he became Sen- 
ator. In 1860 he was nominated for the 
Vice-Presidency by one wing of the Demo- 
cratic party on a ticket with John C. 
Breckinridge, of Kentucky. 

Mr. Lane died in 1881 in the forest re- 
gion of his beloved adopted State, poor in 
purse, but rich in the esteem and con- 
fidence of his countrymen. 


On the second ballot William K. King 
of Alabama was unanimously nominated 
for the Vice-Presidency. 

The party platform adopted was worded 
precisely as that of 1848. Two additional 
planks were added — one approving the 
compromise measures patched up by Clay, 
Webster, Fillmore, Crittenden, Douglas, 
etc. The final declaration was to the effect 
"that the Democratic party will resist all 
attempts at renewing in Congress, or out 




of it, the agitation of the slavery question, 
under whatever shape or color the attempt 
may be made." The nomination of Gen- 
eral Franklin Pierce was very generally 
greeted with enthusiasm, especially by the 
younger element of the party. Most of the 
Freesoil Democrats who had rallied to the 
support of Van Buren and Adams in 1848 
enlisted under the banner of Pierce and 
King and contributed their mite to the 
sweeping victory the following November. 

The remainder of the story of 1852 is 
easily narrated. Confused, chagrined and 
demoralized, the Whigs met in Baltimore 
on the 16th of June, with every State rep- 
resented. John G. Chapman of Maryland 
was made the presiding officer. 

As narrated by Col. A. K. McClure, "the 
Southern delegates fortified themselves 
before the meeting of the convention by a 
caucus declaration of the party platform, 
and it was an open secret that if the con- 
vention accepted the platform, enough 
Southern men would support Scott to give 
him the nomination. They knew that Fill- 
more could not be elected and that Web- 
ster was even weaker than Fillmore, and 
they were willing to accept Scott, who was 
the candidate of the anti-slavery element 
of the party, if the compromise measures 
were squarely affirmed by the party con- 
vention, while Scott was willing to accept 
the nomination with any platform the con- 
vention might formulate. Fillmore had 
carried the compromise measures and 
forced the Whigs to accept them in the 
party platform, but the insincerity of that 
expression was manifested by the refusal 
to nominate Fillmore, and by the nomina- 
tion of Scott, who represented the anti- 
compromise Whigs of the country. There 
were 53 ballots for President, but during 
the long struggle there was but little ex- 
hibition of ill-temper. Scott started with 
131 to 133 for Fillmore and 29 for Web- 
ster, and ended with 159 for Scott to 112 
for Fillmore and 21 for Webster." 

The nomination of General Scott was 

made unanimous, and William A. Graham 
of North Carolina, who was then serving 
as Secretary of the Navy under the Fill- 
more administration, was considerately 
given a unanimous nomination for Vice- 
President on the second ballot. 

The platfoi'm adopted by the convention 
declared that — 

"The Union should be revered and 
watched over as the palladium of our lib- 

"As the people make and control the 
Government, they should obey its consti- 
tution, laws and treaties as they would I'e- 
tain their self-respect and the respect 
which they claim and will enforce from 
foreign powers." 

"The Federal and State Governments 
are parts of one system, alike necessary 
for the common prosperity, peace and 
security, and ought to be regarded alike 
with a cordial, habitual and immovable 

"The series of acts of the Thirty-second 
Congress, the act known as the Fugitive 
Slave Law included, are received and 
acquiesced in by the Whig party." 


The Freesoil Democrats held their na- 
tional convention in Pittsburgh on the 11th 
of August. Henry Wilson, of Massachu- 
setts, presided. Without the formality of 
a ballot. Senator John P. Hale of New 
Hampshire was nominated for President 
and Congressman George W. Julian of In- 
diana for Vice-President. Reiterating the 
declaration of 1848, the platform declared 

"Slavery is a sin against God and a 
crime against man, which no human en- 
actment nor usage can make right." 

"The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 is re- 
pugnant to the Constitution ; we therefore 
deny its binding force on the American 
people and demand its immediate and 
total repeal." 



-19 1 

"Slavery is sectional and freedom na- 

"We recommend the amicable settle- 
ment of (international) difficulties by a 
resort to decisive arbitrations." 

"The Free Democratic party is not or- 
ganized to aid either the Whig or Demo- 
cratic wing of the great slave compromise 
party of the Nation, but to defeat them 

On the popular vote the Democrats had 
1,838,169; the Whigs 1,380,576; Free De- 
mocracy 156,149. Of the electoral vote 
Pierce and King had 254 ; Scott and Gra- 
ham 42 ; Hale and Julian none. Scott and 
Graham carried four States: Kentucky, 
12; Massachusetts, 13; Tennessee, 12; 
Vermont, 5. 

Badly as the grizzly warrior, Scott, was 
defeated in this contest, it will be observed 
that he carried twice as many States as, 
fifty-six years later, were carried by Wil- 
liam Howard Taft. No comparison is to 
be made between these two men as to fit- 

ness and qualification. The vote of In- 
diana stood: 95,340 for Pierce, 80,901 
for Scott, 6,929 for Hale— total, 183,170. 
Franklin Pierce was by far better fitted 
for the Presidency than was his chief com- 
petitor. Born in Hillsboro, N. H., Novem- 
ber 23, 1804; graduated from Bowdoin 
College in 1824; studied law and was ad- 
mitted to the bar in 1827 ; member of the 
State House of Representatives 1829- 
1833 ; served as Speaker 1832-1833 ; twice 
elected to Congress; elected to the United 
States Senate and served from March 4, 
1837, to February 28, 1842, when he re- 
signed. Resumed the practice of law in 
Concord; served in the Mexican war as 
Colonel; commissioned Brigadier-General 
in March, 1847, and remained in Mexico 
until the close of the war. In 1850 he was 
chosen a member of the Constitutional 
Convention and made president of that 
body. His triumphant election to the 
Presidency in 1852 marked the beginning 
of the end of the Whig party. 

[Chapter XXI.] 


P to the time when Benjamin F. 

UJ Shively was elected to the 
United States Senate it was 
commonly remarked that no 
man living north of the Wa- 
bash river had served in the 
upper branch of Congress. 
Had that declaration been so modified as 
to render it that no man residing north of 
the Wabash had, prior to Mr. Shively's 
selection, been elected a United States Sen- 
ator, the accuracy of the statement would 
have been incontestable — though the 
somewhat qualifying statement should not 
be lost sight of that three United States 
Senators were chosen from Logansport, 
which is located along the Wabash, in the 
persons of John Tipton, Graham N. Fitch 
and Daniel D. Pratt, and one from Lafay- 
ette, also a Wabash river town, in the per- 
son of John Pettit. 

Governor Whitcomb was elected to the 
United States Senate in 1848 and took his 
seat in that body March 4, 1849. He was 
not in robust health, grew steadily worse, 
and died October 4, 1852. Governor Jo- 
seph A. Wright appointed as Whitcomb's 
successor a former Congressman from the 
northern part of the State, Charles W. 
Cathcart, of Laporte county, who took his 
seat upon the assembling of Congress, De- 
cember 6, 1852. When the Legislature of 
1853 assembled a lively contest ensued 
over the selection of a candidate for the 
temporarily filled Senatorship. For some 
unexplained reason no effort was made to 
secure the nomination of Mr. Cathcart by 
the legislative caucus. The friends of 
Governor Wright rallied to the support of 
Judge John Pettit, of Lafayette, while the 
adherents of Senator Bright did their ut- 
most to secure the caucus nomination for 
Dr. Graham N. Fitch, of Logansport. The 

vote stood 54 for Pettit and 46 for Fitch. 
Pettit was duly elected January 11 and 
took his seat just one week later, viz., 
January 18, 1853. Then Charles W. Cath- 
cart was relieved of Senatorial duties, his 
service extending over exactly forty-two 
days. Having previously served two 
terms as Representative in the Lower 
House, he enjoyed a distinction not often 
conferred upon national legislators. His 
career as man and public official is replete 
with interest and presents instructive in- 
formation as to the possibilities of forg- 
ing ahead in this land of unsurpassed op- 

Charles W. Cathcart was born on the 
island of Madeira, July 24, 1809. Re- 
ceived a good education in the Catholic 
schools of the country where he was born, 
and in his early years took to the sea and 
became a master of the science and art of 
navigation. He worked as a ship carpen- 
ter, going once to Greenock, Scotland. 
Meantime his parents had come to reside 
in Washington, D. C, where, after various 
adventures on sea and land, Charles joined 
them, and went to work for the chief 
clerk in the General Land Office. That en- 
gagement opened his eyes to the advan- 
tages of the great West, so in 1831 he came 
to Indiana, reaching the State on foot. 
He went first to the community of Robert 
Dale Owen at New Harmony, with whom 
he seems to have been acquainted. Hear- 
ing there of the beauties and attractions 
of the northwestern part of the State, he 
resumed his journey and reached Laporte 
county. He first located at South Bend, 
worked awhile at Niles, then settled in 
Laporte county, completed the survey on 
the Michigan road lands under Judge 
Polk, which had been undertaken by his 
son, Adam Polk, afterwards Sheriff' of La- 

( 155 ) 


-19 16 

porte county, and when the land sale at 
Logansport took place he purchased the 
lands in New Durham township where 
ever afterward he had his home. Being a 
carpenter, he worked at his trade in and 
about Laporte, and had several interest- 
ing experiences during the Blackhawk 
war. Mr. Cathcart was afterward ap- 
pointed clerk in the Land Office at Laporte 
by John M. Lemon, receiver, whose daugh- 
ter, Josephine, he made his wife. After 
his marriage Mr. Cathcart engaged exten- 
sively in farming, at which he was very 
successful. At the time of his death, Au- 
gust 22, 1888, he was justly regarded one 
of the county's foremost farmers. 

In 1835 Mr. Cathcart became a Repre- 
sentative in the State Legislature, issuing 
during his campaign a frank statement of 
his position, which was published in the 
Michigan City Gazette. He ran for State 
Senator on the Democratic ticket in 1840, 
but was defeated, and was defeated for 
Representative in 1843, but was chosen 

district elector in the Polk and Dallas 
campaign of 1844. He served in Congress 
from 1845 to 1847, defeating Judge Sam- 
ple, of South Bend, and was re-elected in 
1847, in this contest defeating Daniel D. 
Pratt, who later on became a United 
States Senator. Mr. Cathcart was ap- 
pointed United States Senator in place of 
James Whitcomb, deceased, serving from 
December 6, 1852, to January 18, 1853. 
He was pitted against Schuyler Colfax for 
Congress in 1860, but was unsuccessful. 
In the following canvass he took the stump 
as a War Democrat in advocacy of Mr. 
Colfax's Congressional candidacy, and his 
efforts proved quite a factor in that gentle- 
man's election. Though not what is com- 
monly called an orator, Mr. Cathcart was 
a power on the stump. When the war 
broke out he promptly took the side of his 
country, and his patriotism was manifest 
throughout the entire struggle for the 
preservation of the Union. 


[Chapter XXII.] 




MONG the difficult problems 

AIm which confronted the founders 
I of this Republic in establish- 
1 ing a new power among the 
nations of the earth and mak- 
ing its government conform to 
the new ideals that had been 
evol\ ed in the New World, none were more 
difficult of solution than the question of 
slavery and that of the proper spheres of 
State and Federal authority. Both prob- 
lems were attacked in the true English 
spirit of opportunism and compromise — 
an endeavor to surmount the present diffi- 
culty and satisfy all parties. It is a note- 
worthy fact that both these problems were 
finally solved at the same time and by the 
same means — the force of arms. 

In the earlier days, however, there was 
greater difference of opinion on the re- 
spective authority of the State and the 
Nation than there was on the slavery 
question. Even during Washington's first 
administration pai'ty lines were drawn be- 
tween Federalists and anti-Federalists, 
and more intense partisan bitterness has 
never existed than was manifested by 
these two organizations before the close 
of the eighteenth century. 

Slavery, on the other hand, was recog- 
nized by all as an evil and an anomaly in 
a free government, and the only diff'er- 
ences that existed were as to the best 
methods of securing its ultimate extinc- 
tion. The best exposition of the feelings 
and purposes of the fathers on this ques- 
tion is given in the address issued by the 
Democratic legislators of New York State 
at the close of the session of 1848. It has 
been termed the "First Gun for Freesoil," 

and was the joint production of Samuel J. 
Tilden, Martin Van Buren and the latter's 
son, "Prince" John. By ample quotations 
it showed that thei'e was no sectionalism 
in the attitude of the founders of the Re- 
public in regard to slaveiy. All consid- 
ered it as an evil and looked to its ultimate 
elimination. The only differences of opin- 
ion were as to the means of bringing about 
the desired result. 

The ethical side was epitomized in the 
words of Jefferson : "I tremble for my 
country when- I remember that God is 
just." Patrick Henry voiced the wish and 
faith of all in these words : "I believe the 
time will come when an opportunity will 
be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. 
Everything we can do is to improve the 
opportunity, if it happens in our day; if 
not, let us transmit to our descendants, to- 
gether with our slaves, a pity for their un- 
happy lot and an abhorrence of slavery." 
The practical mind of Washington sug- 
gested the method of action : "I can only 
say there is not a man living who wishes 
more sincerely than I do to see a plan 
adopted for the abolition of slavery. But 
there is only one proper and effectual 
mode by which it can be accomplished, and 
that is by the legislative authority; and 
this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall 
not be wanting." 

The plan of Washington was put into 
effect. The abolishment of slavery within 
its borders was conceded to be the affair 
of each State. But the matter of importa- 
tion of slaves and the status of the institu- 
tion in the territories was vested in the 
general Government. The Federal Con- 
stitution, which is the organic law of the 




Nation, provided that the slave trade 
might be abolished at the end of tw^enty 
years; and it was so terminated by Con- 
gressional action. Indeed, so careful were 
the framers of the Constitution to avoid 
even a recognition of the system that the 
word "slave" or "slavery" does not appear 
in it, "because," in the words of Madison, 
"they did not choose to admit the right of 
property in man;" moreover, by giving a 
three-fifths representation for the persons 
held in servitude, the Constitution lifted 
the bondmen above the grade of mere 
chattels, and one of the first acts of Con- 
gress was to reaffirm the ''"Ordinance of 
1787" — written by Jefferson — prohibiting 
slavery forever in the territory, ceded by 
Virginia, north of the Ohio and east of 
the Mississippi. In 1793 the first Con- 
gressional action towards allaying ill- 
feeling between the States resulted in the 
enactment of a law providing for the re- 
turn of fugitives from one State into an- 
other. This law was popularly known as 
the "fugitive slave law," although its pro- 
visions related to fugitives from justice or 
involuntary servitude. 

From the beginning the ethical consid- 
eration of the question of slavery was 
complicated by the financial interests in- 
volved. The respite of twenty years given 
the African slave trade was a concession 
to the shipowners and slave traders of the 
northern cities, and the abolition of slav- 
ery in the northern States was much facil- 
itated by the fact that slave labor did not 
prove profitable in that section. Neither 
was that kind of labor particularly profit- 
able at the South until after the invention 
of the cotton gin. But for the mechanical 
genius of Whitney, it is possible that the 
"opportunity" hoped for by Patrick Henry 
might have arrived during the lifetime of 
Jeff"erson, and slavery might have been 
abolished by the voluntary action of all 
the States, according to the plan suggested 
by Washington. 

The rapid growth of the cotton industry 

having given impetus to slavery in the 
South, Congress, in its legislation for the 
Territories, recognized the institution in 
that part of the country lying south of the 
Ohio and east of the Mississippi. The 
State of Louisiana was also admitted in 
1812 with a constitution authorizing slav- 
ery. The States just north of the cotton- 
producing region also found it profitable 
to raise slaves for sale to the Southern 
planters. In the meantime an abolition 
sentiment had been growing in the north- 
ern States. The North had not only freed 
its own slaves, but was becoming active in 
opposition to any further extension of 
slavery in the Union. Out of this conflict 
of interests and ethical views a variety of 
opinions as to the system was developed 
and tenaciously maintained North and 
South. The unanimity of opinion held by 
the founders of the Republic was replaced 
by a diversity of views in which each 
sought to justify his own on moral 
grounds. One class believed in the right 
of a superior race to dominate an inferior 
one and boldly asserted that slavery was 
not only a humane institution, but had 
divine sanction as a civilizing instrument 
to elevate the negro from his native state 
of savagery. This view was held by in- 
fluential religious organizations at the 
South and proclaimed from the pulpit and 
through the press. It was also held by 
these that the slave was better oflF than 
the free negro "running at large." An- 
other class deprecated the existence of 
slavery, but contended that since it had 
been an established institution from the 
formation of the Union, there should be 
no interference with it. Still another 
class held that since slavery existed law- 
fully in certain States, legal protection of 
the property rights of the slaveholder was 
proper and necessary, but that there must 
be no extension of slavery into new terri- 
tory. Then there was a fourth class, in- 
significant in numbers, it is true, but in- 
sistent in proclaiming its views, which 



held that slavery was wholly and totally 
wrong, "the sum of all villainies," and 
that, therefore, it had become a public 
duty to abolish the institution. In the 
course of the controversy the foremost 
champions of this last view were William 
Lloyd Garrison. Joshua R. Giddings, Ger- 
rit Smith, Wendell Phillips and Owen 

In addition to the moral and economical 
aspects of the controversy, political com- 
plications arose. The slaveholding inter- 
ests demanded that equality of representa- 
tion should be maintained in the Senate — 
that is, that for every free State admitted 
there should be a corresponding one per- 
mitting slavery. This balance of power 
had remained until 1820, when Maine and 
Missouri applied for admission into the 
Union. Missouri was formed out of the 
"Louisiana Purchase," to which the North 
claimed that the provisions of the Ordi- 
nance of 1787 should be applied. The 
South, however, insisted that if Maine 
were admitted as a free State, Missouri 
should also come in as a slave State. The 
controversy became very bitter; but the 
matter was finally adjusted by admitting 
the two on the basis of the Southern de- 
mand, but accompanying their admission 
with a solemn compact that all other terri- 
tory west of the Mississippi and north of 
the parallel of the south line of Missouri 
should be placed under the inhibition of 
the Ordinance of 1787; that is, it should 
be forever free. This measure became 
known as the "Missouri Compromise." 
Jefferson did not approve of the compro- 
mise. "I consider it," he said, "the knell 
of the Union. A geographical line coin- 
ciding with a marked principle, moral and 
political, once conceived and held up to 
the angry passions of men will never be 
obliterated." Prophetic words! The ob- 
literation was secured only through the 
blood of thousands of Americans. 

While agitation and discussion both 
within and without the halls of Congress 

waxed hot and bitter, no action of impor- 
tance affecting the slavery question was 
taken until the war with Mexico rendered 
probable the acquisition of territory from 
that country. It is true that Texas, having 
secured her independence, had been on her 
own request admitted into the Union as a 
slave State, as also had been Arkansas, but 
there had been Northern States admitted 
also. The war with Mexico had, indeed, 
grown out of the admission of Texas. 

Inasmuch as slavery had been aboli.shed 
in Mexico, the question as to the territory 
to be obtained from that country involved 
leaving things as they were, or the estab- 
lishment of slavery in communities where 
it did not exist — and anti-slavery feeling 
in the North was thoroughly aroused. In 
1846, when the bill appropriating money 
for the expenses of the war was before the 
House of Representatives, David Wilmot, 
a Democrat from Pennsylvania, offered an 
amendment providing that slavery should 
be forever prohibited in any territory that 
might be acquired as the result of the war. 
This was the famous "Wilmot Proviso." 
It was adopted by the House but rejected 
in the Senate. 

In 1848 the Democratic State Conven- 
tion of New York adopted the principle of 
the Wilmot Proviso and passed resolutions 
protesting against the establishment of 
slavery in any of the Territories. This 
action of the New York Democracy awak- 
ened bitter antagonism in pro-slavery 
circles and resulted in sending a contest- 
ing delegation from the Empire State to 
the Democratic National Convention. 
That convention, after two days' delibera- 
tion, resolved to admit both delegations 
from New York, each with half the vote 
of the State. This proposition was in- 
dignantly declined by the Van Buren men, 
whereupon the "Hunker" contestants, 
headed by Daniel S. Dickinson, though sit- 
ting in the convention, took no part in the 
voting. General Lewis Cass was nom- 
mated for President. Then followed the 
Freesoil Democratic party with Van Buren 



as the nominee for President and Charles 
Francis Adams for Vice-President. The 
result was the election of the Whig candi- 
date, Zachary Taylor. 

In the meantime the struggle increaseid 
in bitterness. California, rapidly filling 
up with miners, mostly from the North, 
was asking for admission into the Union, 
and the population of Oregon had 'become 
sufficient to entitle it to territorial govern- 
ment. Texas was putting forth claims to 
part of the ceded territory, and the ques- 
tion whether slavery should be recognized 
in territorial governments had become 
very acute. 

The Clayton Compromise, brought for- 
ward in 1848, proposed to leave the ques- 
tion of slavery in the territory involved to 
the decision of the Supreme Court. The 
Senate approved the compromise, but the 
anti-slavery House of Representatives re- 
jected it. Finally, early in 1850, Henry 
Clay brought forward his compromises, 
which, after eight months, were enacted 
into laws, which resulted in the admission 
of California as a free State ; the organiza- 
tion of Oregon as a Territory with slavery 
prohibited ; the establishment of territorial 
governments for Utah and New Mexico 
without restrictions as to slavery ; the area 
of Texas reduced, she being paid $10,000,- 
000 for the loss of territory; the forbid- 
ding of the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia, and the enactment of a strin- 
gent fugitive slave law. Neither side was 
fully satisfied with these compromises and 
their adoption helped to seal the fate of 
the Whig party. 

Within two years propositions came for 
organizing a territorial government in the 
country west of Missouri. These resulted 
in an enabling act for the Territories of 
Kansas and Nebraska, which was passed 
in May, 1854. This act, taking the Clay 
compromises as a precedent for leaving 
the question of slavery to the verdict of the 
people of the Territory, repealed the old 
Missouri Compromise and established the 
principle of what was by some termed 

"popular sovereignty" and by others 
"squatter sovereignty." Strife between 
the North and the South for the settlement 
of Kansas resulted in a civil war in the 
Territory and was a potent factor in form- 
ing the Republican party, whose chief 
tenet was that set forth in the Freesoil 
convention which nominated Van Buren 
in 1848, namely, that there must be no 
slave Territories and no more slave States. 

Finally, to cap the climax of causes for 
irritation at the North, came the "Dred 
Scott Decision," delivered by Chief Justice 
Taney, of the United States Supreme 
Court, in the latter part of the year 1856. 
Dred Scott was a negro, who had been 
taken as a slave to Fort Snelling, in the 
Louisiana Territory, held there for several 
years, and had there married his wife, 
brought there in the same manner. They 
were then taken to Missouri and held as 
slaves, two children being born to them. 
In 1854 Dred Scott brought suit for the 
freedom of himself and family, basing his 
claim on the fact that they were unlaw- 
fully held in servitude at Fort Snelling be- 
cause of the prohibitive clause of the 
Missouri Compromise. The suit passed 
through three inferior courts and reached 
the Supreme Court in December, 1855. It 
was reargued the next spring, but the de- 
cision was deferred until after the Presi- 
dential election of 1856. The decision, 
concurred in by six of the eight justices 
of the Supreme Court, was accompanied 
by an elaborate opinion from the Chief 
Justice. It held that two questions were 
involved : 

First, was Dred Scott, even if free, be- 
ing a descendant of Africans imported as 
slaves, a citizen of the United States, 
competent to bring suit in the courts? 
This question the court decided in the 
negative, and the Chief Justice, in his 
opinion, declared that at the time the Fed- 
eral Constitution was adopted, and for a 
hundred years before, the practice of all 
civilized nations was based on the theory 
that the negroes were an inferior race fit 




only for bondage, and that "the black man 
had no rights which the white man was 
bound to respect." 

The second question was whether the 
section of the Missouri Compromise for- 
bidding slaveiy in the Louisiana Territory, 
on which was based the claim for freedom, 
was constitutional. This question also was 
answered in the negative, and Dred Scott's 
claim to freedom was denied. Moreover, 
the six justices declared that Congress had 
no power to exclude slavery from any 
Territory of the United States. It is 
worthy of note that this declaration is di- 
rectly opposed to the opinion expressed by 
Samuel J. Tilden, "That Congress has no 
power to establish or permit slavery in the 

By a singular coincidence of circum- 
stances this "Dred Scott Decision" was 
made absolutely nugatory. Before it was 
rendered the negro family had been pur- 
chased by an anti-slavery man and made 
free; also, in 1854, the Missouri Compro- 
mise had been repealed. The decision, 
however, had a powerful effect upon the 
fate of slavery. It furnished the text for 
animated and earnest discussion through- 
out the North, particularly exemplified in 
the debate between Lincoln and Douglas in 
the Illinois Senatorial campaign of 1858. 
This discussion rallied the North to the 
support of the doctrine promulgated by 
the Freesoil Democratic Convention in 
1848, which was now embodied in the 
rallying cry of the new Republican party 
— "No more slave States; no slave Terri- 

As a result of fifty years of discussion, 
controversy and compromises, public 
sentiment had finally become divided along 
these lines: (1) Recognition of slavery in 
the States where it legally existed, but 
denial of the right to take slaves into the 
Territories and a demand that no more 
slave States be admitted into the Union. 
(2) Slavery being a recognized institution, 
the question of its introduction to be left 
to the people of the organized Territories. 

(3) Slaves being recognized as property, 
the slave owner to be protected in taking 
his slaves where he should choose. It will 
be seen that the final decision was made 
without reference to any of these views. 
Slavery was wiped out of existence as a 
result of the unreasonableness and arro- 
gance of the slave power. 

The election of Abraham Lincoln to the 
Presidency in 1860 was followed by the 
great Civil War between the pro-slavery 
and the anti-slavery States. This war 
finally solved the two great problems 
which had confronted the founders of the 
Nation. The authority of the general 
Government was made supreme and the 
right of secession denied. Slavery was 
abolished, first, partially as a war meas- 
ure, and, finally and completely, according 
to Washington's plan, "through legislative 
action" in the organic law of the Nation 
by the adoption of the thirteenth amend- 
ment to the Constitution. 

In this connection it is interesting to 
recall the origin of slavery, and particular- 
ly its establishment in this country. 
Slavery is doubtless as old as society. It 
is founded upon the law of force — that the 
weaker must submit to the stronger. 
Justinian, in his Institutes, refers its ori- 
gin to three sources, viz., captivity in war, 
purchase of the individual for a price paid 
himself, and birth from a slave mother. 
African slavery is traceable to the first 
and third of these sources. 

Slavery was introduced into this coun- 
try by the sale of twenty negroes in Vir- 
ginia from a Dutch man-of-war in Au- 
gust, 1620. So little favor did it find that 
at the end of fifty years there were scarce- 
ly 2,000 slaves in the colony. In 1699 the 
General Assembly passed the first of a 
succession of acts — twenty-three in all — 
prohibiting the importation of negro 
slaves; but every one of these acts was 
vetoed by the royal Governors, and one of 
the complaints against the King of Great 
Britain by the colonists was that he had 
prevented the people of this country from 


putting a stop to the injurious traffic. It 
is noteworthy, too. that one of the earhest 
acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 
after the Declaration of Independence, 
was to pass a law prohibiting the importa- 
tion of slaves into the State. This was, as 
a matter of history, the first legislation in 
the civilized world "setting the seal of 
reprobation upon that opprobrium of mod- 
ern civilization," the African slave trade. 

It occurred nearly thirty years before 
Great Britain took like action. 

Thus it is seen that the introduction and 
maintenance of slavery in the colonies was 
against the wishes and in spite of the op- 
position of the colonists. It was due to the 
avarice of British slave traders and of 
owners of British slave ships, and was 
akin to the similar selfish policy which led 
England to make the new world the dump- 
ing ground for her criminals. 

[Chapter XXIII. ] 



mN the year 1854 the Democracy 
of Indiana held its State Con- 
vention in the balmy month of 
May (on the 24th). The at- 
tendance, as usual, was large. 

On motion of J. W. Borden, 
Lieutenant-Governor Ashbel P. 
Willard was made temporary chairman. 
Upon taking the chair, he delivered a 
characteristic speech — one that thrilled 
the great convention and aroused un- 
bounded enthusiasm. 

The honor of officiating as permanent 
presiding officer was conferred upon Sen- 
ator Jesse D. Bright. The hearty greeting 
accorded him upon being presented to the 
convention bore eloquent testimony to the 
esteem in which he was held by his polit- 
ical associates. 

As Vice-Presidents, these gentlemen 
were named: Richard Raleigh, Elisha G. 
English, John L. Spann, A. C. Pepper, 
James Osborn, J. M. Gregg, John S. Davis, 
Jacob Walker, A. L. Wheeler, J. C. Van 
Olman and Mr. Johnson. 

Secretaries — James Bradley and C. B. 


For Secretary of State, Nehemiah Hay- 
den, of Rush county, received 413 votes, 
to 60 for Wm. R. Bowes, of Laporte. 

For Auditor of State, John P. Dunn, of 
Perry county, was nominated by 395 votes, 
to 74 for Joseph J. Bingham, of Lafayette. 

On motion of B. R. Edmonston, Elijah 
Newland, of Washington county, was by 
acclamation renominated for State Treas- 

On motion of General James R. Slack, 
of Huntington, William C. Larrabee was 
in like manner renominated for Superin- 
tendent of Public Instruction. 

For Supreme Judge, Fourth district, 
Alvin P. Hovey, of Posey county, was 
nominated over James M. Hanna, of Sulli- 
van, by a vote of 272 to 113. 


1. B. R. Edmonston, Dubois County. 

2. James S. Athon, Clark. 

3. Samuel H. Buskii-k, Monroe. 

4. A. C. Pepper, Ohio. 

5. N. H. Raymond, Wayne. 

6. William J. Brown, Marion. 

7. William E. McLean, Vigo. 

8. Joseph J. Bingham, Tippecanoe. 

9. Samuel A. Hall, Cass. 

10. James Sinclair, Allen. 

11. S. L. Rugg, Adams. 


After the stunning defeat in 1840, the 
Democrats of Indiana enjoyed an uninter- 
rupted succession of victories, beginning 
with the triumphant election of James 
Whitcomb to the Governorship, in 1843. 
Every State election held thereafter sig- 
nalized a Democratic victory. P^our 
gubernatorial elections resulted in the 
choice of Democrats — in placing at the 
head of the State government such faith- 
ful and efficient public servants as James 
Whitcomb and Joseph A. Wright, both 
elected to two successive terms. Notwith- 
standing the conceded excellence of their 
administrations, conditions arose that, at 
the time, were susceptible of being 
thoughtlessly construed to mean a vote of 
censure, but which in calmer moment was 
pronounced one of those strange mani- 
festations which Mr. Lincoln mildly and 
considerately termed "wobbling." 

A combination of circumstances led to 
the popular verdict of 1854. The repeal 
of the Missouri Compromise, brought 
about largely through the efforts of 
Stephen A. Douglas in the almost desper- 


ate hope and expectation of calming the 
rising storm of slavery and anti-slavery 
agitation ; a renewal of the intensely bitter 
fight against the liquor traffic; the rapid 
spread of that political eruption known as 
Know-Nothingism, and a liberal sprinkling 
of indefinable discontent — all these irrita- 
tions on the body politic contributed to 
the remarkable upheaval that led to what 
in efi'ect amounted to a recantation of the 
verdict of 1852. 

Edward E. Moore speaks thus of the 
manner in which the Fusion movement 
accomplished its purpose for the time be- 

"Governor Wright's administration was 
signalized by a great agitation. Several 
local and special acts dealing with the 
liquor traffic were passed by the Legisla- 
ture of 1850, and in 1853 a general law, 
with local option features, was enacted. 
This latter fell under the condemnation of 
the courts on grounds of unconstitution- 
ality, and the people, already impatient 
because of the evils of the traffic, seemed 
especially provoked at the result. So in 
1854, rallying all the temperance forces of 
the State, and uniting all elements of op- 
position to the Democratic party, which at 
its convention had declared against tem- 
perance legislation, the temperance people 
succeeded in electing a full State and legis- 
lative ticket on a prohibition platform. 
The enthusiasm was tremendous. And 
when the Legislature met in 1855 it pro- 
ceeded to pass a State-wide prohibition 
law, and the Governor, though a Demo- 
crat, signed it. But before the task of 
putting it in operation had proceeded very 
far this law also was declared unconstitu- 
tional by the Supreme Court. 

"Largely because of the overshadowing 
importance now assumed by the slavery 
question the temperance agitation grad- 
ually subsided, but it never entirely ceased. 
Through spasmodic movements of differ- 
ent kinds and the continuous efforts of 
temperance societies and parties, the agi- 
tation has been kept continually before the 
people for more than a hundred years. It 
began before the days of Statehood. The 
evils of intemperance were especially 
marked in its influence upon the Indians. 
They would barter anything they pos- 
sessed for the white man's 'fire water,' 

and it not only affected their temper, mak- 
ing them troublesome and dangerous to 
deal with, but destroyed them physically. 
Stronger temperance documents than the 
messages and State papers of some of the 
early Governors would be hard to find." 

The Fusion convention was held Thurs- 
day, July 13, at Washington Hall, Indiana- 
polis. Thomas Smith, of Ripley, a former 
Democratic member of Congress from the 
Fourth district, had been selected for 
president of the convention at a prelim- 
inary meeting, held the night before, 
presided over by Jacob P. Chapman, with 
John L. King, of Madison, as secretary. 

Smith was a pronounced opponent of 
slavery extension. Associated with him 
were a number of other hitherto prom- 
inent Democrats, among them Oliver P. 
Morton, Dr. E. W. H. Ellis, Dan Mace, M. 
C. Garber, H. L. Ellsworth, ex-commis- 
sioner of patents, Capt. John A. Hendricks 
and others of that type. Most of these 
men subsequently became permanently 
identified with the newly organized Re- 
publican party. 

In taking the chair. President Smith 
commented on the causes which had called 
together so vast a concourse of people. 
"It was," he said, "the uprising of the 
masses determined to pursue the dictates 
of their own sense of right rather than 
the behests of party leaders." He had been 
a Democrat all his life and was no less a 
Democrat now. No man had a right to 
say that the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise was a Democratic measure so far 
as the sentiments of the majority of the 
Democrats in the free States were con- 
cerned. They were opposed to it; it had 
never been submitted to them; they had 
not and would not give their sanction to 
it. Forty-three of the Democratic mem- 
bers of Congress out of the eighty-nine 
members from the free States had voted 
for it. What right had any party to say 
it was approved by the majority of the 
Democrats from the free States? 

Col. Smith, in the course of his address. 



spoke approvingly of the Ordinance of 
1787 and its influence on the great North- 
west. Rev. George B. Jocelyn, a Meth- 
odist minister, made his first political 
speech on this occasion, while Hon. H. L. 
Ellsworth and Capt. John A. Hendricks, 
both of whom had taken part in the re- 
cently held Democratic convention, 
repudiated the platform adopted at that 

The official vote, as cast in the election 
of 1854, was : 

E. B. Collins, Dearborn, Fusion. . .98,259 12,623 
Nehemiah Hayden, Democrat 85,636 

Hiram E. Talbot, Putnam, Fusion. .91,812 5,604 
John P. Dunn, Democrat 86,208 


W. R. Noffsinger, Parke, Fusion. .97,726 12,134 
Elijah Newland, Democrat 85,592 

Samuel B. Gookins, Vigo, Fusion. . .96,386 11,029 
Alvin P. Hovey, Democrat 85,357 


Caleb Mills, Fusion 99,857 14,022 

William C. Larrabee, Democrat 85,835 

Noffsinger received 23,367 votes on bal- 
lots bearing an incorrect initial. A bitter 
controversy arose over reputed efforts to 
prevent his taking the office, but the Gov- 
ernor issued to him the commission with- 
out compelling legal action. 

It is worthy of note that Alvin P. 
Hovey, at the time of his nomination for 
Supreme Judge, was a member of the 
Supreme Court by appointment of Gov- 
ernor Wright. Addison L. Roache 
resigned from that body and was suc- 
ceeded by Hovey, who entered upon duty 
May 8, 1854. The Democratic State Con- 
vention, which met on the 24th day of the 
same month, nominated Hovey for that 
position. At the general election that 
year, October 10, Samuel B. Gookins, 
nominee of the Fusionists, was elected 

EMOCRACY — 1816-1916 

over Hovey and served until 1857, when 
he was succeeded by James L. Worden. 

Addison L. Roache resigned from the 
Supreme Court bench May 8, 1854. Alvin 
P. Hovey was appointed his successor. 
At the next genei-al election, held October 
10, Hovey. who had been given the Demo- 
cratic nomination, failed of election with 
the rest of the Democratic ticket. 


Not only did the Fusionists elect their 
entire State ticket and a majority of the 
General Assembly, but they also succeeded 
in electing nine of the eleven members of 
Congress. Only two of the eleven Demo- 
cratic Congressional nominees escaped 
defeat. These were Smith Miller, in the 
First, and Wm. H. English, in the Second 
district. In the Lafayette district the 
Fusionists bodily captured Dan Mace, 
whom the Democrats had three times sent 
to Congress, and made him the Fusion 
nominee — and elected him with a major- 
ity of 2,519. Among the Democratic 
Congressional candidates who went down 
in defeat were Thomas A. Hendricks, in 
the Sixth district, beaten by 478 votes, 
and Wm. S. Holman, in the Fourth, de- 
feated by Will Cumback. Only two of the 
nine districts that sent Democrats to 
Congress in 1852 stood firm. These were 
the First and the Second, re-electing Smith 
Miller by 813 and William H. English by 
586. Two of the eleven — English and 
Cumback — were natives of Indiana. The 
delegation was made up of these gentle- 

1. Smith Miller, Patoka. 

2. William H. English, Lexington. 

3. George G. Dunn, Bedford. 

4. William Cumback, Greensburg. 

5. David P. Holloway, Richmond. 

6. Lucien Barbour, Indianapolis. 

7. Harvey D. Scott, Terre Haute. 

8. Daniel Mace, Lafayette. 

9. Schuyler Colfax, South Bend. 

10. Samuel Brenton, Fort Wayne. 

11. John U. Pettit, 


-19 16 

With a view to enabling the discerning 
reader to gain a fair understanding of 
what was involved in this contest and 
brought about such drastic results, the 
platforms of the opposing parties are 
herewith reproduced in their entirety: 


"Resolved, That the Democrats of In- 
diana fully approve of the principles of 
the act extending the laws of the United 
States over and organizing the Territories 
of Nebraska and Kansas. 

"2. Resolved, That we concur in the 
opinion that it is not properly within the 
jurisdiction of Congress to determine the 
provisions of the constitution of a State, 
further than to require that it be a re- 
publican form, but on the contrary, that 
the people do possess the right and power 
to adopt such form of government as they 
may deem best suited to their views and 
wants, and that this right shall be recog- 
nized as one of the fundamental principles 
of self-government. 

"3. Resolved, That this convention is 
distinctly opposed to that provision of the 
Nebraska and Kansas bill commonly 
known as the Clayton amendment, which 
made a distinction between native born 
and foreign inhabitants, who may be resi- 
dents of the Territories, and feel gratified 
that the efforts of the democracy have been 
successful in expunging that odious fea- 
ture from the act. 

"4. Resolved, That intemperance is a 
great moral and social evil, for the re- 
straint and correction of which legislative 
interposition is necessary and proper, but 
that we can not approve of any plan for 
the eradication or correction of this evil 
that must necessarily result in the inflic- 
tion of greater ones, and that we are there- 
fore opposed to any law upon this subject 
that will authorize the searching for or 
seizure, confiscation and destruction of 
private property. 

"5. Resolved, That we regard all polit- 
ical organizations, based upon the single 
idea of temperance reform, as dangerous 
to the perpetuity of our republican form 
of government by withdrawing the atten- 
tion of the people from the great political 
principles upon which it is founded, and 

that we most earnestly appeal to our fellow 
Democrats throughout the State to adhere, 
in the selection of members of the Legisla- 
ture, to the practice of choosing such men 
as will make these great principles of 
Democratic policy, under the influence of 
which this country has been brought to its 
present elevated and prosperous condition, 
paramount to all other considerations. 

"6. Resolved, That we have full faith 
and confidence in the wisdom, patriotism 
and ability of Franklin Pierce, President 
of the United States, and that we fully 
approve of the principles laid down in his 
inaugural message and his message to 
Congress, and that we most truly and 
cordially endorse the general policy of his 
administration as carried out in conform- 
ity with the principles laid down in said 

"7. Resolved, That Judge Douglas, of 
the United States Senate, is entitled to 
and receives our hearty thanks for so ably 
advocating the principles of non-interven- 
tion, as contained in the Kansas and Ne- 
braska bill, and that we cordially endorse 
the action of our Senators and Repre- 
sentatives in sustaining the same. 

"8. Resolved, That the Democracy of 
Indiana, still adhering to the Constitution 
of the Confederacy, openly and avowedly 
condemns any organization, secret or 
otherwise, that would aim to disrobe any 
citizen, native or adopted, of his political, 
civil or religious liberty." 


"Whereas, We, the freemen of Indiana, 
without respect to party, and actuated by 
a common devotion to our Republic, and a 
common reverence for its founders, have 
assembled ourselves together in commem- 
oration of the passage of the ordinance 
of July 13th, 1787, consecrating the North- 
west Territory to freedom; and, 

"Whereas, The unanimous adoption of 
said ordinance by the Representatives of 
all the States in the Union at that date 
clearly evinces that opposition to the 
extension of slavery, to the extent of con- 
stitutional power, was the fixed policy of 
our fathers ; and, 

"Whereas, We regard the recent repeal 
of the eighth section of the 'Missouri Com- 
promise' as a gross and wanton violation 
of the faith of the Union, plighted to a 
solemn compact, restricting the extension 
of slavery; therefore. 


"Resolved, That we are uncompromis- 
ingly opposed to the extension of slavery ; 
and further, that we utterly deprecate and 
repudiate the platform of principles 
adopted by the self-styled Democratic 
convention on the 24th day of May, last, 
endorsing- and approving the Kansas-Ne- 
braska iniquity. 

"Resolved, That we will waive all for- 
mer party predilections, and, in concert, 
by all lawful means, seek to place every 
branch of the Federal Government in the 
hands of men who will assert the rights of 
freedom, restore the Missouri Compro- 
mise and refuse, under all circumstances, 
to tolerate the extension of slavery into 
Territories secured to freedom by that 

"Resolved, That we regard intemper- 
ance as a great political, moral and social 
evil — a legitimate subject of legislation — 
and that we are in favor of the passage of 
a judicious, constitutional and efficient 
prohibitory law with such penalties as 
shall effectually suppress the traffic in in- 
toxicating liquors as a beverage. 

"Resolved, That we utterly condemn the 
abusive attacks which have recently been 
made from various quarters on the prot- 
estant ministry of the country. We 
cherish with gratitude and pleasure the 
memory of their patriotic zeal in the 
Revolutionary struggle, and we recognize 
in the ministry of the country the worthy 
sons of such illustrious sires." 

The anti-liquor movement began during 
the forties. It had assumed formidable 
proportions in 1848 and culminated in the 
election of a Legislature that had the dis- 
position to deal drastically with the evil 
of intemperance. Several causes con- 
tributed to the creation of a pronounced 
sentiment in opposition to the liquor 
traffic. Quite a number of men high in 
office were notoriously intemperate in 
their habits. Some of them, otherwise 
held in high esteem, were retired to pri- 
vate life on account of their fondness for 
liquor. A man of extraordinary orator- 
ical powers, chosen to represent Indiana 
in the Senate of the United States, shot 
his brother-in-law while both were in a 
state of intoxication. Malaria was quite 
common in Indiana, and the popular 

remedy was quinine and whisky. In agri- 
cultural pursuits whisky was considered 
an indispensable adjunct to harvesting. 
Snake bites were of frequent infliction, 
and whisky was the popular antidote. A 
"bracer" before breakfast was regarded 
an absolute necessity in many households. 
There were no internal revenue laws in 
those days, and a country store without 
whisky for sale was indeed a rarity. All 
these usages and practices had their effect. 
Popular education was too slow a process 
to lessen the evils of intemperance, so the 
conclusion was reached that the right 
course to pursue in the premises was to 
legislate. This was done. For the same 
reasons that Governor Thomas A. Hen- 
dricks approved the dra.stic Baxter law of 
1873, Governor Joseph A. Wright signed 
the temperance legislation that came to 
him for approval or rejection during his 
second term of office. But the Supreme 
Court, elected by the people in 1852, made 
short work of this sort of legislation by 
declaring it to be unconstitutional in its 
main provisions. The grounds upon which 
this was done is briefly yet comprehensive- 
ly set forth in this epitome, carefully 
formulated by the Hon. James E. McCul- 
lough. Assistant Attorney-General : 


"The local option law was an enactment 
of March 4, 1853, and the prohibition law 
was approved February 16, 1855. The 
said local option law provided for taking a 
vote by townships annually at the April 
election on the license question, and that 
without the consent of a majority of the 
legal voters of the proper township 'for 
license,' none could issue. In connection 
with the affirmative vote a bond was also 
required by the applicant for license. So 
much of this act as made the issuing of a 
license depend upon the favorable vote of 
the township was held unconstitutional in 
Maize vs. The State, 4 Ind. 342. The de- 
cision of the court was based on the 
ground that the legislation was obnoxious 
to the sections of the constitution, which 
respectively provide as follows : 




Section 25, Article 1: No law shall be passed, 
the taking effect of which shall be made to de- 
pend upon any authority, except as provided in 
this constitution. 

Section 26, Article 1: The operation of the 
laws shall never be suspended, except by author- 
ity of the general assembly. 

Section 22, Article 4: Local laws for the pun- 
ishment of offenders and for the regulation of 
county and township business, are expressly for- 

Section 23, Article 4: Whenever a general law 
can be made applicable all laws shall be general 
and of uniform operation throughout the State. 

"The holding of the court, in substance, 
was that so much of the legislation as 
made the legality of a license in a town- 
ship depend upon the vote of the people 
was to make the taking effect of the law 
depend upon that vote, which, under the 
constitution, the Legislature was unau- 
thorized to do. The court further says: 
'If we regard the act of March, 1853, in 
force from its passage, as is claimed in 
argument, then we conceive it to be in 
conflict with Section 26 of Article 1. That 
section reads : "The operation of the laws 
shall never be suspended except by au- 
thority of the General Assembly." ' As 
already indicated, the court also holds the 
act is in violation of the local law clause 
of the constitution above quoted. 

"In the case cited, while the court holds 
that the local option feature of the legisla- 
tion is void, it holds that the statute may 
nevertheless stand as a license law with 
the local option feature eliminated. How- 
ever, in the case of Meshmeier vs. The 
State, 11 Ind. 483, the court overruled so 
much of the former decision as held that 
any of the act in question was valid, and 
held that the whole act fell in consequence 
of the local option feature being so con- 
nected with the other provisions of the 
act, as that a part could not be held valid 
and a part invalid. 

"The prohibitory law of 1855 was held 
void in Beebe vs. The State, 6 Ind. 501. The 
decision in this case may be said to be 
based upon the ground that the legislation 
in question is iiltra vires the Legislature 
of the State under the constitution thereof. 
The court says, on page 510: 'The first 
section of the first article (of the consti- 
tution) declares that all men are endowed 
by their creator with certain inalienable 
rights ; that among these are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. Under our 
constitution, then, we have some rights 
that have not been surrendered, which are 
consequently reserved and which govern- 
ment cannot deprive us of unless we shall 
first forfeit them by our crimes.' Several 
sections of the constitution are quoted by 
the court for the purpose of showing that 
the legislative power of the State under 
the constitution is not at all unlimited. 
For instance, the section providing that 
'the privilege of the debtor to enjoy the 
necessary comforts of life shall be recog- 
nized by wholesome laws;' the section 
against 'passing a law impairing the obli- 
gation of contracts;' the section against 
'any law restraining the free interchange 
of thought and opinion,' etc. 

"These sections were quoted by the 
court in support of its position to the 
effect that the Legislature had by no means 
been given unlimited power over the un- 
alienable rights of citizens or others within 
the State, and it is held that among these 
rights is that of acquiring property, sell- 
ing or disposing of the same and using 
the same, and that intoxicating liquors are 
property, and were so regarded at the 
adoption of the constitution, and hence the 
right to manufacture, sell or use the same 
is one of the rights not taken away by 
the constitution, nor is power given to the 
Legislature to take the same away." 

[Chapter XXIV.] 



URING the early fifties a new 
party sprang up to hinder and 
harass the progress of national 
understanding and to defer the 
solution of the great problem 
that threatened the security of 
the American Government. 
Party strife, resulting from violent con- 
tentions over State rights and abolition, 
could not fail but produce political move- 
ments inimical to sane reasoning and 
humane thinking. A mistaken sense of 
patriotism, a gross misconception of the 
requisites of true American citizenship, 
produced in these troublous times a pe- 
culiar organization known as the Know- 
Nothing party. As its name implies, it 
fostered sentiments, narrow and provin- 
cial, hostile to every internal instinct, and 
incompatible with the spirit of political 
freedom that characterized the founders 
of the great American Republic. It was 
directed first and essentially against 
Catholic influence, or Romanism, as this 
alleged danger was called. Its organiza- 
tion was founded on secrecy, luring the 
ready followers of formalism, such as en- 
joy connection with societies whose chief 
charm lies in rituals, oaths and vows of 
a more or less doubtful meaning. 

Later the Know-KTothings turned their 
eff'orts more directly against the foreign- 
born element of our population. It is but 
just to acknowledge that many a sincere 
man was attracted into this circle of agi- 
tators who posed as the friends of liberty, 
and incidentally as the champions of the 
Southern slave. Then, too, not a few of 
the anti-slavery men supported the Know- 
Nothings in the hope of hastening the 
dissolution of the old Whig party and 
winning support for the Republican party. 

which a few years later was preparing to 
assume control of the Federal Govern- 
ment. The name of the Know-Nothing 
party had gradually given way to that of 
the American party. The organization 
continued to flourish under this more 
euphonious appellation without having 
changed any of its original tenets. Vari- 
ous demonstrations of ill-will the 
foreigners, as well as a number of bloody 
assaults made on inoftensive people, 
aroused strong resentment in certain 
quarters against smug defenders of 
their self-interpreted Americanism. 

The fact that foreigners sought protec- 
tion within the fold of the Democratic 
party, by whom they were cordially re- 
ceived, began to arouse the opponents to 
slavery and the adherents of the Repub- 
lican party to the danger that threatened 
their own political security. This unwar- 
ranted outburst of nativism had to be com- 
bated by some dignified expression of dis- 
approval from a respectable source. One 
of the Republican leaders, Henry Wilson, 
United States Senator from Mas.sachu- 
setts, at one time said to have belonged to 
the now oflfensive party, turned his whole 
energy to defeat a measure, submitted by 
his own Legislature to a vote of the people, 
which provided that no foreigner should 
have the right to vote until he had been 
for two years a citizen of the United 
States. He and Edward L. Pierce, later 
the biographer of Charles Sumner, invited 
Carl Schurz, the great representative of 
adopted citizen.ship, to attend a public din- 
ner given at Boston on the anniversary of 
Thomas Jefferson's birthday. This par- 
ticular day was chosen in harmony with 
the rejuvenated Jefferson States Rights 
principle that had been revived in defense 



-19 16 

of the new fugitive slave law. The real ob- 
ject of Mr. Schurz's presence was to arouse 
a demonstration against the nativistic tide 
and save the State for nobler work. The 
dinner was held at the Parker House and 
was attended by the gentlemen already 
named in this connection, as well as by 
John A. Andrew, later War Governor of 
Massachusetts ; Governor Boutwell, Frank 
Bird, Samuel Bowles and others. Denun- 
ciations of the fugitive slave law and the 
narrow-minded spirit of nativism were 
freely uttered by these champions of lib- 
erty and helped to pave the way for a 
larger and more striking gathering that 
took place a few days later, on April 18, 
1859, at Faneuil Hall. 

Carl Schurz was on this evening the 
speaker of honor and availed himself of 
the opportunity to voice in matchless ora- 
tory the sentiments that made him the 
ideal son of a great Republic, born though 
he was on foreign soil. In his memoirs 
Mr. Schurz apologizes for this wonderful 
outburst of feeling and excuses it on the 
plea of youth and the strength of emotions 
as yet uncurbed in the consciousness of the 
untold possibilities of civil liberty in Amer- 
ica. It is to be regretted that the speech 
may not be reproduced verbatim, as every 
word breathes loyalty, devotion and a 
boundless love for the land of his adop- 

The first paragraph must suffice to in- 
dicate the spirit : 

"A few days ago I stood on the cupola 
of your State House and overlooked, for 
the first time, this venerable city and the 
country surrounding it. Then the streets, 
and hills, and waters around me began to 
teem with the life of historical recollec- 
tions — recollections dear to all mankind — 
and a feeling of pride arose in my heart, 
and I said to myself, 'I, too, am an Ameri- 
can citizen.' There was Bunker Hill, and 
Charlestown, and Lexington and Dorches- 
ter Heights not far off"; there the harbor 
into which the British tea was sunk; there 
the place where the old liberty tree stood ; 
there John Hancock's house; there Ben- 
jamin Franklin's birthplace. And now I 

stand in this grand old hall, which has so 
often resounded with the noblest appeals 
that ever thrilled American hearts, and 
where I am almost afraid to hear the echo 
of my ov/n feeble voice. Oh ! no man that 
loves liberty, wherever he may have first 
seen the light of day, can fail, on this 
sacred spot, to pay his tribute to Ameri- 
canism. And here, with all these glorious 
memories crowding upon my heart, I will 
off"er mine. I, born in a foreign land, pay 
my tribute to Americanism? Yes; for to 
me the word 'Americanism,' true Ameri- 
canism, comprehends the noblest ideas 
which ever swelled a human heart with 
noble pride." 

Then follows a clear description of the 
first train of emigrants that left his home 
on the Rhine among the famous Seven 
Mountains, of the deep impressions that 
the sad farewell made upon his young 
heart and of the words of love and rever- 
ence that all spoke when they mentioned 
"that great and free country where a man 
could be himself." 

He pointed out to his enraptured listen- 
ers how from the vigorous elements of all 
civilized nations a new and youthful Na- 
tion had been created ; how this great Na- 
tion rested on the principle that all men 
are created equal and are endowed with 
certain inalienable rights, among which 
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness. He showed how our political 
existence lifts the lowliest of the human 
family from degradation and inspires them 
with the elevating consciousness of equal 
human dignity; it accepts "the most con- 
servative, for it makes a common cause of 
individual rights;" how the equality of 
rights becomes a mutual protection among 
men; "the general identity of interests is 
the one thing that guarantees the stability 
of Democratic institutions;" "equality of 
rights embodied in general self-govern- 
ment is the great moral element of true 
Democracy; it is the only reliable safety- 
valve in the machinery of modern society ;" 
. . . "there is our safety; there, and 
nowhere else." And we have our difficul- 
ties. There are many who are incapable 



of independent thought, cramped perhaps 
by religious and other teachings not in 
accordance with the requirements of true 
Democracy. Heterogeneous elements, un- 
fair aspirations and furious passions may 
apparently threaten, but the "genius of 
true Democracy will arise and restore 
calm. It is ideal to say that inexperienced 
people must first be educated to self-gov- 
ernment. To this sophistry the fathers of 
this Republic oppose the noble doctrine 
that liberty is the best school for liberty, 
. . ." In this vein he continued, resting 
his case not on the emotional side of his 
heartfelt plea, but moving step by step 
through the rational and judicial aspects 
of a great cause on which rests the per- 
petuity of our institutions. 

The wonderful appeal did not fail in its 
mission. He carried conviction and faith 
into the minds and hearts of his listeners, 
and proved that lofty ideals have their 
place in the plain business of popular legis- 
lation and statecraft. He likewise struck 
a blow at intolerance that has made it 
easier since to speak a kind word for the 
humble and the neglected. That a larger 
life, politically speaking, has grown from 
these practical precepts is evident on all 
sides. As the spirit of Know-Nothingism 
may never for long raise its head from the 
shadows to which it has been relegated, it 
still behooves us all to share the vigils of 
the true patriot who seeks above all to 
cultivate the spirit of tolerance and fair 
play in the land in which it can above all 
others be preserved inviolate for all time. 

In Indiana Know-Nothingism took deep 
root for a time. To the credit of the 
Democratic leaders generally be it said, 
few of them faltered when this intolerant 
crusade was at fever heat. David Turpie 
gives this interesting account of what hap- 
pened during that trying period : 

"Although not a candidate in 1854, yet I 
was an active participant in the canvass 
then made, as in all the campaigns from 
1848 onward. The opposition was at this 

time called the People's party, but the 
nominations, the active organization and 
movements of the party, were all con- 
trolled by clandestine association within 
its lines, known as the Order of Native 
Americans, commonly called Know-Noth- 
ings. Our was made upon the 
principles of the Democratic platform as 
then announced. Our majorities in 1852 
had been large and general; there was ap- 
parently no violent opposition to the 
course of our administration at Washing- 
ton, and on the face of things success 
seemed probable. The public campaign of 
our opponents was a mere pretense ; it 
dealt to some extent with current issues, 
but disclosed nothing of their real designs 
and policy. We felt, as the canvass pro- 
ceeded, that there was something ajar in 
popular opinion, a subdued though quite 
an active commotion, but we were unable 
to divine its causes or to locate its effects. 
It became known from various sources 
that there were numerous defections from 
our ranks, and it was surmised that these 
made additions to the lodges of native 
Americans, which sprang into existence 
on every side, yet the personnel of these 
converts was known only to the brother- 
hood of the order, which, in its first 
obligation, bound the new member to con- 
ceal and deny his membership. It was not 
until after the election that we learned 
with certainty the aims and objects of this 
wide-spread combination. 

"The result of the election in October, 
1854, afforded us a good deal of informa- 
tion, and much more chagrin. A tidal 
wave of great force and rapidity had 
.swept over our former constituencies. It 
had submerged the highest and 
places in the political reserves; it had 
scorned calculation, laughed at prediction 
and tossed aside apportionments like chaff 
before the whirlwind. We were beaten on 
the State ticket, in the Legislature, in al- 
most two-thirds of the counties, and if 
there had been anything else to lose we 
.should have lost it. 

"When, however, the Legislature met, 
which had been elected by these methods, 
when it had enacted the Maine law and 
other statutes quite as obnoxious to the 
people of the State, a reaction set in and 
the ebb became as swift and .strong as the 
flood had been in their favor. Both Whigs 
and Democrats abandoned their connec- 
tion with the order, revealed and de- 


19 16 

nounced its hidden dogmas and designs, 
which now were made public and no- 

"This movement had commenced in hos- 
tility to the Roman Catholic church, but 
soon comprised all foreign-born and nat- 
uralized citizens in its proscription. 
Catholics were to be subject to a special 
test oath of allegiance, and foreign-born 
citizens must reside twenty-one years in 
the United States before their admittance 
to the franchise ; offices of trust and profit 
were to be held only by native-born Amer- 
icans; all other citizens were to be ex- 
cluded by law as ineligible. Americans 
must rule America. The passions and 
prejudices of mankind were inflamed to 
the highest degree by the most incredible 
rumors, circulated in the occult councils of 
the lodges. This led to many acts of brutal 
violence, and the scenes of bloody Monday, 
a frightful day of massacre and burnings, 
were heralded as a victory at the polls of 
true-born Americans against the rule of 
foreigners and aliens. 

"The Democratic party immediately 
assailed and denounced this policy of ex- 
clusion, appealing to that liberal and 
generous spirit of the people which, from 
the beginning, had been so often shown in 
the legislation of our State. This appeal 
was not made in vain. Our success in In- 
diana in 1856 was even more complete 
than it had been in 1852 ; it resulted in the 
final overthrow of those influences of 
bigotry and persecution which had, by 
their stealthy approach, acquired for a 
brief period an apparent ascendancy. 

"The prominent figure in the great cam- 
paign against Know-Nothingism was 
Lieutenant-Governor Ashbel P. Willard. 
. . . He was a wonderfully gifted 
orator. Before a popular audience his 
good humor was invariable. Neither ques- 
tion, interruption nor contradiction caused 
him the least annoyance; calmly he 
awaited the proper moment, swiftly de- 
livered his answer or retort — ^the assailant 
vanished. With this constancy of self- 
control he was not otherwise lacking in 
emotion or sensibility; indeed, to use the 
phrase of the good people of that day, he 
was known to be uncommonly tender- 
hearted. The opposition made the objec- 
tion to his selection as Governor that he 
would empty every cell in the penitentiary ; 
that he could not resist importunity nor 
repel the prayer of sympathy. Sometimes 

he noticed this objection in telling his 
hearers that although he might not be so 
strict in the exercise of the pardoning 
power as some of his predecessors, yet he 
would take good care during his adminis- 
tration to see that no Know-Nothing 
received the benefit of the executive clem- 
ency. The crowd laughed and cheered, 
and the objection was forgotten. . . . 
"In dealing with the dogmas of the so- 
called Native American Order, he sketched 
briefly, at the close, the lives and char- 
acters of Carroll and of Arnold, ending 
with a single sentence of contrast : 'Bene- 
dict Arnold was a Protestant, a native- 
born American and a traitor. Charles 
Carroll, of Carrollton, was an Irishman, a 
Catholic and a patriot.' This passage, 
much noted at the time, may be even now 
not unworthy of remembrance." 

The most violent anti-Catholic dem- 
onstrations that occurred during this 
proscriptive movement were those at 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati and 
Louisville. What were in those days 
known as "Plug Uglies" had identified 
themselves with the Know-Nothing or- 
ganization in some of these cities. They 
were a lot of coarse, brutal, ill-bred des- 
peradoes who had absolutely no regard for 
personal rights or religious freedom. On 
the slightest pretext they would make 
violent assaults upon peaceable individuals 
whose only offense was that of having been ■ 
born on the other side of the ocean or of 
worshiping in a church hated by these 
ruffians. It was unsafe even for Prot- 
estants to hold church or Sunday-school 
picnics if the membership thereof chanced 
to be mainly of foreign-born men and 
women. To such extremes were these acts 
of ruffianism carried that fair-minded 
Americans of commanding influence in 
their respective localities felt impelled to 
raise their voices in unmistakable tones 
against this flagrant violation of real 
Americanism. From North and South, 
from East and West, were sent forth 
vigorous protests against this proscript- 
ive, oath-bound, intolerant order. 

Perhaps the most lucid, logical and ex- 




haustive treatment that was made of the 
Know-Nothing, oi- native American, 
propaganda is found in a letter written by 
Governor Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, in 
September, 1854, of which the following is 
an epitome, or rather an abridgment, for 
his own words are almost exclusively used : 

"I do not think that the present state of 
affairs in this country is such as to justify 
the formation, by the people, of any secret 
political societv. 

"The laws of the United States— Fed- 
eral and State laws — declare and defend 
the liberties of our people. A people free 
in every sense — free in the sense of Magna 
Charta and beyond Magna Charta; free 
by the surpassing franchise of American 
charters, which makes them sovereign and 
their wills the source of constitutions and 

"In this country at this time does any 
man think anything? Would he think 
aloud? Would he speak anything? His 
mind is free : his person is safe ; his prop- 
erty is secure; his house is his castle; the 
spirit of the laws is his body-guard and 
his houseguard ; the fate of one is the fate 
of all, measured by the same common rule 
of right; his voice is heard and felt in the 
general suffrage of freemen. Would he 
propagate truth ? Truth is free to combat 
error. Error herself may stalk abroad 
and do her mischief, and may make night 
itself grow darker, provided truth is left 
free to follow, however slowly, with her 
torches to light up the wreck ! Why, then, 
should any portion of the people desire to 
retire in secret and by secret means to 
propagate a political thought, or word, or 
deed by stealth? If it be good, why not 
make the good known ? Why not think it, 
speak it, write it, act it out openly and 
aloud? Or is it evil which loveth the dark- 
ness rather than the light? 

"Here is proposed a great primary, 
national organization, in its inception — 
what? Nobody knows. To do what? 
Nobody knows. How organized? Nobody 
knows. Governed by whom? Nobody 
knows. How bound ? By what rites ? By 
what test oaths? By Avhat limitations and 
restraints? Nobody, nobody knows! All 
we know is that persons of foreign birth 
and of the Catholic faith are proscribed; 
and so are all others who don't proscribe 
these at the polls. This is certainly against 
the spirit of Magna Charta. 

"Our condition of freedom at home 
shows no necessity for such a secret or- 
ganization with its antagonism to the very 
basis of American rights. The proportion 
of native born to foreigners in the country 
is as eight to one, and a large part of the 
latter are already naturalized citizens. 
The proportion of Prote.stants to Catholics 
is twenty-one to one. What is the neces- 
sity for this master majority to resort to 
secret organization against the minority? 
To retire in secret with such a majority, 
does it not confess to something which 
dares not subject itself to the scrutiny of 
knowledge? Cannot the Know-Nothings 
trust to the leading Protestant churches to 
defend themselves and the souls of all the 
saints and sinners, too, against the influ- 
ence of Catholics? Can't they trust the 
patriotism and fraternity of natives to 
guard the land against immigrants? As 
to their religion, I ask them. Why not rely 
on God? And do the Know-Nothings 
imagine that pride and love of country are 
so dead that secret organizations are neces- 
sary to beget a new-born patriotism to 
protect us from foreign influence? 

"Now, in defense of our people, I say for 
them that no people on earth are more 
possessed with nationality as a strong 
passion than the people of the United 
States of North America. Nowhere have 
any people such certainty of the reward of 
vigilance; nowhere have they such free- 
dom of self-government; nowhere is there 
such trained hatred of kings, lords and 
aristocrats; nowhere is there more self- 
independence or more independence of the 
Old World and its traditions — in a word, 
nowhere is there a country whose people 
have, by birthright, a tithe of what our 
people have to make them love that land 
which is their country and that spot which 
is their home. No ! As long as the mem- 
ory of George Washington lives, as long as 
there is a 22nd of February or a Fourth 
of July, as long as the everla.sting moun- 
tains of this continent stand and our 
Father of Waters flows, there will be 
fathers to hand down the stories to make 
our hearts glad and mothers to sing 'Hail 
Columbia' to their babes — and that song is 
not yet stale. There is no need of a secret 
society to revive a sinking patriotism in 
the hearts of our people. 

"And who would have them be selfish in 
their freedom? Freedom! Liberty! Self- 
ish and exclusive! Never! Is there any 


necessity from abroad for such a secret 
political organization ? Against whom and 
against what is it leveled? Against for- 
eigners by birth. When we were as weak as 
three millions we relied largely on foreign- 
ers by birth to defend us and aid us in 
securing independence. Now that we are 
twenty-two millions strong, how is it we 
are become so weak in our fears as to ap- 
prehend we are to be deprived of our 
liberties by foreigners? Verily this 
seemeth as if the Know-Nothings were re- 
versing the order of things, or that there 
is a different feeling from that of fear aris- 
ing from a sense of weakness. It comes 
from a proud consciousness of over-ween- 
ing strength, which would say to the 
friends of freedom abroad, 'We had need 
of you when we were weak, but now we 
are so independent of you that we are not 
compelled to allow you to enjoy our re- 
publican privileges.' But this secret 
organization is leveled not only against 
foreigners by birth, but against the Pope 
of Rome. There was a time when the very 
name 'Papa' frightened us as the children 
of a nursery. But how now with the 
papacy shorn of its temporal sovereignty? 
The idea of the Pope's domination at this 
day is as preposterous as that of the return 
of the Gunpowder Plot. Protestants and 
natives are here both free and strong. Do 
they wish in turn to persecute and exclude 
the down-trodden of the earth? God for- 

"As a Nation we are but seventy-eight 
years of age. And the ancestors of this 
people, about two centuries ago, were for- 
eigners, every one of them coming to the 
shores of this country to take it away from 
the aborigines and to take possession of it 
by authority, directly or indirectly, of the 
Papal power. His Holiness, the Pope, was 
the great grantor of all the new countries 
of North America. Foreigners, in the 
name of the Pope and Mother Church, took 
possession of North America, to have and 
to hold the same to their heirs against the 
heathen forever! And now already their 
descendants are for excluding foreigners 
and the Pope's followers from an equal en- 
joyment of this same possession. Much of 
the early settlement was due to the force 
and constraint of religious inhabitants. 
Puritans, Huguenots, Cavaliers, Catholics, 
Quakers, all came to the Western wilds, 
each in turn persecuted and persecuting 
for opinion's sake. 

"The American Revolution made a new 
era to dawn — the era of liberty of con- 
science. Is it now proposed that we shall 
go back to the deeds of the dark ages of 
despotism? I trust that a design of that 
intent shall remain a secret buried for- 

"Our laws sprang from the necessity of 
the condition of our early settlers. The 
neglect of the mother country left the 
settlers self-dependent and self-reliant 
until they were thoroughly taught the les- 
son of self-government. They knew pri- 
vation, fatigue, endurance, self-denial, 
fortitude — and were madmen at arms — 
cautious, courageous, generous, just and 
trusting God. They had an unexplored 
continent to subdue and they needed popu- 
lation, more fellow-settlers, more foreign- 
ers to immigrate and aid them in the task 
of founders of empire. They grew and 
thrived until they were rich enough to be 
taxed, and wise enough to perceive that 
taxation without representation is tyran- 
ny. The attempt of Great Britain to 
impose such taxation and their resolve 
never to submit to it brought on the alter- 
native of war, and they all, foreigners and 
natives. Catholics and Protestants, took 
the dire alternative, united as a band of 
brothers, and declared their dependence on 
God alone. And they entered to the world 
a complaint of grievances — a Declaration 
of Independence. One of their first com- 
plaints was that King George was striving 
to prevent the population of the country 
by obstructing the naturalization of for- 
eigners. Another was that they had made 
a vain appeal for justice to their British 
brethren, because of which they were 
driven to hold them as the rest of man- 
kind — 'enemies in war, in peace friends.' 
Then finally to uphold their liberties they 
mutually pledged 'their lives, their for- 
tunes and their sacred honor.' And M^ho 
are they that, relying on the same God, 
made this solemn pledge? There was 
Hancock the Puritan, Penn the Quaker, 
Rutledge the Huguenot, Carroll the Cath- 
olic, Lee the Cavalier, Jefferson the Free- 
thinker. There were representatives of all 
the signers, and the signers were repre- 
sentative of all the people of all the colo- 
nies. Did not this pledge bind them, bind 
us, their heirs, forever to faith and hope in 
God and to charity for each other — to 
tolerance in religion and to mutuality in 
political freedom? 



1 8 1 6 - 1 1 (; 

"But this organization is not only 
opposed to the spirit of our institutions, 
but seeks to annul the letter of our laws 
and constitutions. For the Virginian, the 
Declaration of Rights adopted June 12, 
1776, is the fundamental law. This in- 
strument declares that 'no man or set of 
men are entitled to exclusive or separate 
emoluments or privileges from the com- 
munit.v, but in consideration of public 
services, which, not being descendible, 
neither ought public offices to be heredi- 
tary.' Yet these Know-Nothings seek to 
confine all offices to native Protestants. 
The Declaration of Rights further asserts 
that 'all men are equally entitled to the 
free exercise of religion according to the 
dictates of conscience, and that it is the 
mutual duty of all to practice Christian 
forbearance, love and charity toward each 
other.' But this secret society puts a 
penalty upon the Catholic, to say nothing 
of its lack of Christian charity. 

"Know-Nothingism also seeks the 
amendment of the naturalization laws of 
the Nation and therein contravenes Amer- 
ican spirit and practice. One of the best 
fruits of the American Revolution was to 
establish for the first time in the world 
the human right of expatriation. Prior to 
our separate existence as a Nation of the 
earth the despotism of the Old World had 
made a law unto themselves whereby they 
could hold forever in chains those of man- 
kind who were so unfortunate as to be 
born their subjects. In respect to birth- 
right and the right of expatriation, and 
the duty of allegiance and protection, and 
the law of treason — crowned heads held to 
the ancient dogma, 'Once a citizen, always 
a citizen.' If a man was so miserable as 
to be born the slave of a tyrant, he must 
remain his slave forever. He could never 
renounce his ill-fated birthright, never 
forswear the allegiance that bound him to 
its chains, and could never expatriate him- 
self to a better country. If America 
beckoned to him to fly to her for freedom 
and give to her the cunning and the 
strength of his right arm to help work out 
her destiny, he must obtain permission and 
passport or be regarded as a fugitive from 
justice. But the foreigners came, and 
early in the Revolutionary war some of 
the best blood of the colonies were hung by 
the king's forces, under the maximum of 
'Once a citizen, always a citizen.' Only 
Washington's threat of retaliation on 

British prisoners stopped the barbarous, 
arbitrary practice. At last our struggle 
ended and Cieorge III was compelled to re- 
nounce his claim for our allegiance. Still 
Europe was loth to give up its dogma, but 
the leathers boldly defied her and placed in 
the constitution the authority of Congress 
'to establish a uniform rule for naturaliza- 
tion.' The rule was established, and this 
great land made one vast asylum for the 
oppressed of every other land, and under 
its provisions the best blood of Europe has 
come to our shores, received protection 
and repaid our fostering care by helping 
to upbuild our Nation. These immigrants 
have become in every respect American 
citizens, endowed with all our freedom. 
They have been free to fight for the flag 
and they have fought for it with a bearing 
and sense of patriotic duty which prove 
them worthy fellow-citizens. The war of 
1812 was partly due to our assertion of 
the right of expatriation by the foreigner 
and his naturalization by this Government. 
Does this secret organization, which 
opposes naturalization, wish to uphold the 
claim of England against that of the 
United States? Yet that is the logical re- 
sult of its position in regard to foreigners. 
"Again, Know-Nothingism strikes at 
the very equality of citizenship by denying 
to the Catholic or the foreign-born the 
right to be eligible to ofhce. If these are 
granted citizenship and yet proscribed 
from office, they must be rated as an in- 
ferior class — an excluded class. The law, 
it is true, does not exclude them. Would 
the Know-Nothings, if they had the power, 
formally enact such exclusion ? At present 
for them, by secret combination, to make 
this class unequal, to impose a burden or 
restriction on their privileges which the 
law does not, is to .set themselves up above 
the law and to supersede by private and 
secret authority, intangible and irresponsi- 
ble, the rule of public, political right. 

"There is no middle ground in respect to 
naturalization. If we let foreigners be 
naturalized and don't extend to them 
equality of privileges, we set up classes 
and distinctions of persons wholly opposed 
to republicanism. The Federal Constitu- 
tion especially provides that no religious 
test shall ever be required as a qualification 
to any office or public trust under the 
United States. The Know-Nothing vio- 
lates the Constitution every time he re- 
fuses to vote for a candidate because he is 




a Catholic. Protestantism, in the days of 
the Reformation, protested against se- 
crecy; it protested against shutting out 
the light of truth; it protested against 
proscription, bigotry and intolerance. It 
loosened all tongues and fought the owls 
and bats of night with the light of merid- 
ian day. The argument of the Know- 
Nothings is the argument of silence. The 
order ignores all knowledge. And its pro- 
scription can't arrest itself within the 
limit of excluding Catholics and natural- 
ized citizens. It must proscribe natives 
and Protestants both, who will not consent 
to unite in proscribing Catholics and nat- 
uralized citizens. Nor is this all; it must 
necessarily extend itself to the business of 
life as well as to political preferments. 
Witness the dismissal of schoolmistresses 
from the schools of Philadelphia, and car- 
penters from a building in Cincinnati. 

'"But Know-Nothingism is also opposed 
to the faith, hope and charity of the gospel. 
Protestants did not oppose proscription 
because it was a policy of Catholics, but 
they opposed Catholics because they em- 
ployed proscription. Proscription, not 
Catholics, was the odium to them. Here, 
now, is Know-Nothingism combating pro- 
scription with proscription, exclusiveness 
with exclusiveness. Toleration by Ameri- 
can example had begun its march through- 
out the earth. It trusted in the power of 
truth, had faith in Christian love and 
charity and in the certainty that God would 
decide the contest. Here, now, is an order 
proposing to destroy the effect of our 
moral example. 

"Again, it is against the peace and 
purity of the Protestant churches, and in 
aid of priestcraft within their folds to 
secretly organize orders for religions 
combined with political ends. The world 
outside of the churches will be set at war 
with the sects who unite in this crusade 
against tolerance and freedom of con- 
science and of speech. Freemen will not 
submit to have the Protestant any more 
than the Catholic churches attempt to 
influence political elections. Protestant 
priestcraft is cousin-german to Catholic, 
and the worst union that could be devised 
is that of church and State. The State will 
prostitute and corrupt any church which 
is connected with it, and any State church 
will enslave any State. 

"Know-Nothingism is against free civil 
government by instituting a secret 

oligarchy beyond the reach of popular and 
public scrutiny and supported by blind 
instruments of tyranny bound by test- 
oaths. Nobody knows who constitute the 
supreme council of the order or how many 
there are or where they are. Their ad- 
herents are sworn to secrecy. Their blows 
cannot be quarreled against, for they strike 
not boldly, like men, but in the dark, like 
assassins. How long will stand the pillars 
of freedom of speech and of the press when 
liberty of conscience is gone and birth is 
made to 'make the man?' 

"Know-Nothingism is opposed to our 
progress as a Nation. Did any nation ever 
so grow as we have done under our broad, 
liberal policy and our laws of naturaliza- 
tion? "They have not made aristocracies, 
but sovereigns and sovereignties of the 
people of the West. They have strength- 
ened the stakes of our dominion and 
multiplied the sons and daughters of 
America so that now she could muster an 
army, if need be, that would bid defiance 
to any invader. Now, shall all this policy 
and its proud and happy fruits be cast 
aside for a contracted and selfish scheme 
of intolerance and exclusion? Shall no 
asylum be left open to the poor and 
oppressed of Europe? Shall the growth of 
our population be arrested? Shall prog- 
ress be made to stand still? Are we 
surfeited with prosperity?" 

Governor Wise concludes his masterly 
manifesto with this earnest appeal to the 
sober judgment of the American people: 

"We have institutions that can embrace 
a world-all mankind with all their opin- 
ions, prejudices and passions, however 
diverse and clashing, provided we adhere 
to the law of Christian charity and of free 
toleration. Nothing, nothing is so dan- 
gerous to these institutions; nothing can 
destroy them so soon and so certainly as 
secret societies formed for political and 
religious ends combined, founded on pro- 
scription and intolerance, without neces- 
sity, against law, against the spirit of the 
Christian reformation, against the whole 
scope of Protestantism, against the faith, 
hope and charity of the Bible, against the 
peace and purity of the churches, against 
human progress, against national acquisi- 
tions, against American hospitality and 
courtesy, against American maxims of 
expatriation and allegiance and protection, 
against American settlements and land 



ordinances — against Americanism in 
every sense and shape. Hence, as a Prot- 
estant American in every fiber and in 
every feeling, with all my hand and all my 
heart and all my might, in every character 
and in every sense, I protest against this 
secret organization, which seeks to pro- 
scribe Roman Catholics and naturalized 


Clear, explicit and unequivocal was the 
attitude of Indiana's Democracy with ref- 
erence to the proscriptive policies of the 
Know-Nothing party. In convention as- 
sembled at Indianapolis, January 8, 1856, 
the party defined its position by proclaim- 
ing these ringing declarations: 

"Resolved, We recognize the great body 
of the people as the only tribunal for the 
decision of questions affecting their gov- 
ernment, both as to men and measures, 
and open appeals to their reason and pa- 
triotism as the legitimate means of influ- 
encing their action, and we utterly 
condemn all associations and combinations 
for political purposes formed to govern 
them by oaths and obligations, or other 
compulsory means, or to impair the exer- 
cise of free will and independent judgment 
among them; and we hold in abhorrence 
all secret political orders and organiza- 
tions, deeming them dangerous to the 
stabiHty of government and the rights of 
the people. 

"Resolved, We are in favor of religious 
toleration, as the founders of our republi- 
can institutions achieved and understood 
it, and secured its enjoyment by constitu- 
tional guaranties, and we declare that it 
ought to be maintained free from invasion 
either by means of legislative interference 
or the equally tyrannical proscription of 
political parties founded on bigotry and 
ideas of intolerance. 

"Resolved, While we esteem it the duty 
of government to foster and protect re- 
ligion without invidious preferences, 
leaving all free to choose among denomina- 
tions according to their consciences, and 
while we esteem it the part of true re- 
ligion, under every form, to render 
allegiance and due support to government, 
recognizing the Constitution as the su- 
preme law in all temporal and political 
concerns, we hold the separate administra- 

tion of the aff"airs of church and State 
essential to prevent that union of the two, 
which experience has shown to be per- 
nicious to both and the worst form of 

"Resolved, That our naturalization laws, 
our republican institutions, our marvelous 
growth of national greatness and the hap- 
piness of our people, have been and are 
irresistible inducements and invitations to 
the inhabitants of less favored lands to 
become citizens of ours, and that past ex- 
perience, justice, sound policy and national 
pride all concur to favor the continuance 
of our present naturalization laws; that 
if any abuses have grown up under those 
laws, they have sprung from their imper- 
fect execution alone and not from inherent 
defects in the laws themselves, and that 
we are in favor of that policy which will 
soonest assimilate naturalized citizens 
with the mass of our people, and opposed 
to that anti-American and illiberal policy 
which proscribes the foreign-born citizen 
for the accident of birth and drives him to 
self-defense, to antagonism with our na- 
tive-born citizens in feeling, political 
opinions and conduct." 

More than one-half of the platform was 
devoted to the subject covered by the fore- 
going resolutions, which in itself serves as 
an indication of the strong feeling enter- 
tained by Indiana Democrats in opposition 
to the heresies so ably and so vigorously 
dissected by Governor Wise. 


The author of this book was, during the 
rage of Know-Nothingism, serving his 
apprenticeship in the printing establish- 
ment of George Bergner, at Harrisburg, 
Pa. In addition to conducting a printing 
establishment, Mr. Bergner was engaged 
in the book and stationery business on 
Market street, next to what was later on 
known as the Lochiel Hotel, named in 
honor of General Simon Cameron, whose 
country residence east of Harrisburg bore 
the Scotch name of "Lochiel." Diagonally 
across from the Bergner book store was a 
rival concern, owned and operated by one 
William D. Jack, a full-fledged member of 


the Know-Nothing organization. Mr. 
Bergner was born in Germany, but came 
to this country with his parents in early 
infancy. He married into a purely Amer- 
ican family, none of whom could speak 
German. In his religious affiliation Mr. 
Bergner was a member of the English 
Lutheran congregation ; politically he was 
a Whig, and later on an ardent Republican 
— the publisher of an orthodox Republican 
daily newspaper. Pandering to the pro- 
scriptive spirit of that time, Mr. Jack, in 

advertising his book, periodical and sta- 
tionery business, used these words in his 
circulars and newspaper advertisements: 
"Buy your books, periodicals and station- 
ery of an American in preference to a 
Hessian." The mere citation of such 
boorishness illustrates more strikingly 
than could be done through and by elab- 
orate comment the meanness, narrowness 
and prescriptive spirit that then warped 
the minds of so large a number of zealots 
who made the accident of birth the su- 
preme test of citizenship. 

[Chapter XXV.] 




HE Fusion triumph of 1854 in 
Indiana did not possess staying 
qualities. As a result of the 
splendid campaigning carried 
on by Lieutenant-Governor 
Ashbel P. Willard and his co- 
laborers in the cause of De- 
mocracy, the inroads made upon the ranks 
of the party in 1854 were effaced, popular 
confidence in the party's cause restored and 
Fusionism effectively repelled at the polls. 
The State convention was held January 
10, Judge James G. Reid, of Clark county, 
temporarily presiding. That the Bright 
element was in the saddle was made mani- 
fest by the election of John L. Robinson, 
of Rush county, as permanent chairman of 
the convention, and the nomination of 
Ashbel P. Willard as candidate for Gov- 
ernor. Both were stanch supporters of 
Senator Bright. Further evidence of the 
domination of the Bright element was fur- 
nished by the adoption of a resolution that 
in case the national convention should 
conclude to nominate a western man for 
the Presidency, the Indiana delegation be 
directed to cast its vote as a unit for Jesse 
D. Bright. It might here be stated, how- 
ever, that when the national convention 
assembled at Cincinnati it had become 
quite apparent that the contest was be- 
tween James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, 
and Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois. Un- 
der these circumstances it was not deemed 
advisable to put forward Senator Bright. 
Instead, the Indiana delegation was lined 
up for Pennsylvania's favorite .son, James 
Buchanan, whose nomination was accom- 
plished on the seventeenth ballot. 

G. W. Carr, of Jackson, and James H. 
Stewart, of Carroll, were named as vice- 
presidents of the temporary organization. 

and as secretaries these gentlemen were 
chosen : John B. Norman, of New Albany ; 
John S. Williams, of Lafayette; Solon 
Turman, of Greencastle, and Wm. H. 
Schlater, of Richmond. 

Committee on Resolution.s — C. Dobbins, 

C. K. Drew, Horace Heffren, P. M. Kent, 
Cyrus L. Dunham, J. W. Chapman, Daniel 

D. Jones, Cornelius O'Brien, Lafe Develin, 
Edmund Johnson, 0. K. Dougherty, Mar- 
tin M. Ray, D. W. Voorhees, Wm. M. 
Franklin, Dr. Jas. H. Stewart, D. C. Stover, 
David Turpie, George W. Spitler, Andrew 
Ellison, Frank P. Randall, D., and 
Dr. Isaac Parker. 

The platform adopted by the Indiana 
Democracy approved the principle of the 
compromise measures of 1850 and their 
application as embodied in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, condemned all combinations 
for political purposes and secret political 
orders, stood for religious tolerance, hold- 
ing separate administration of the church 
and State essential; declared that, while 
favoring sobriety and temperance, the 
party was opposed to the prohibitory 
liquor law passed by the last General As- 
sembly; favored the naturalization laws 
then in effect, and went on record as op- 
posed to what was held to be an anti-Amer- 
ican and illiberal policy which persecuted 
the foreign-born citizen for the accident of 
birth and drove him in self-defense to 
antagonism with our native-born citizens 
in feeling, political opinions and conduct. 

A supplementary resolution was adopted 
demanding the dismissal of any mini.ster 
of a foreign government found to have di- 
rectly or indirectly enlisted or aided in the 
enlistment within the dominions of the 
United States of any person to serve in a 
foreign war. 

( 179) 


Another resolution endorsed "the faith- 
ful Democrats who, in the last Legislature, 
by their action prevented the 'Hindoos' 
disgracing the State by electing one of 
their tribe to the United States Senate." 


1. J. W. B. Moore, Warrick county. 

2. James G. Reed, Clark. 

3. Joseph W. Chapman, Jefferson. 

4. John L. Robinson, Rush. 

5. Lafe Develin, Wayne. 

6. John P. Dunn and John Talbot, Marion. 

7. William D. Allen, Putnam. 

8. John W. Blake, Clinton. 

9. Samuel L. McFadin, Cass. 

10. Robert Lowry, Elkhart. 

11. Andrew Jackson, Madison. 

Another report made the State Central 
Committee consist of these gentlemen: 

John Hargrove, 
M. C. Kerr, 
Joseph W. Chapman, 
John L. Robinson, 
Lafe Develin, 
Charles W. Hall, 

John R. Elder, 
Daniel W. Voorhees, 
James H. Stewart, 
O. Everts, 
Samuel W. Sprott, 
Wilson Smith. 


At Large — Graham N. Fitch, Cass county; 
Samuel H. Buskirk, Monroe county. 

District Electors— William F. Parrett, War- 
rick; Simeon K. Wolfe, Harrison; Samuel W. 
Short, Lawrence; D. Jones, Franklin; Edmund 
Johnson, Henry; Martin M. Ray, Shelby; James 
M. Hanna, Vigo; Dr. James S. McClelland, Clin- 
ton; Orpheus Everts, Laporte; Frank P. Randall, 
Allen; S. S. Mickle, Adams. 


Senatorial Delegates — William Rock- 
hill, Allen; Joseph W. Chapman, Jeffer- 
son; John Pettit, Tippecanoe; John L. 
Robinson, Rush. 

District Delegates — Turner Nelson, 
Posey; John C. Herbert, Knox; P. M. 
Kent, Floyd; David Huffstetter, Orange; 
W. A. Aiken, Monroe ; Samuel P. Mooney, 
Jackson; C. O'Brien, Dearborn; A. Davi- 
son, Decatur ; James Elder, Wayne ; James 
Osborn, Union; Alexander Morrison, 
Marion; Judge L. Hardin, Johnson; G. F. 
Cookerly, Vigo; William M. Franklin, 

Owen ; S. W. Telford, Tippecanoe ; Mahlon 
D. Manson, Montgomery; A. A. Whitlock, 
St. Joseph ; N. 0. Ross, Miami ; Dr. G. W. 
McConnell, Steuben; Judge James W. 
Borden, Allen ; Gen. James R. Slack, Hunt- 
ington ; T. Ryans, Madison. 

Quite an array of vice-presidents and 
secretaries — one from each of the eleven 
districts — was named to assist Permanent 
Chairman Robinson in conducting the 
proceedings of the convention. The names 
of quite prominent Indiana Democrats of 
that period will be found in these two 
lists : 


1. John Law, Vanderburg county. 

2. Col. Schoonover, Washington. 

3. Gen. John L. Spann, Jennings. 

4. James B. Foley, Decatur. 

5. James Osborn, Union. 

6. General Milroy, Hancock. 

7. John Allen, Putnam. 

8. James H. Stewart, Carroll. 

9. Benjamin Henton, Miami. 

10. R. J. Dawson, DeKalb. 

11. General Andrew Jackson, Madison. 


1. Richard C. Stephens, Martin county. 

2. Samuel S. Crowe, Scott. 

3. James H. Vawter, Jennings. 

4. Cornelius O'Brien, Dearborn. 

5. Smith Woods, Henry. 

6. John Keightly, Johnson. 

7. Murray Briggs, Sullivan. 

8. A. J. Boone, Boone. 

9. W. R. Bowes, Laporte. 

10. Albert Heath, Elkhart. 

11. William Norton, Huntington. 


For Governor — Ashbel P. Willard, of 
New Albany. 

For Lieutenant-Governor — Col. John C. 
Walker, of Laporte. 

For Secretary of State — Daniel Mc- 
Clure, of Morgan county. 

For Auditor — Gen. John W. Dodd, of 
Grant county. 

For Treasurer — Aquilla Jones, of Bar- 
tholomew county. 

For Superintendent of Public Instruc- 




tion — Prof. Wm. C. Larrabee, of Indiana- 

For Attorney-General — Joseph E. Mc- 
Donald, of Crawfordsville. 

For Reporter of Supreme Court — Gor- 
don Tanner, of Jackson county. 

For Clerk of Supreme Court — William 
S. Beach, of Boone county. 

A sharp contest was waged for the nom- 
ination to the office of Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor. The contestants were Col. John C. 
Walker of Laporte and Robert Lowry of 
Goshen. Walker captured the nomination 
on a close margin. John L. Robinson 
wanted the nomination for Governor and 
sought an alliance with Walker. The lat- 
ter refused to enter into the proposed com- 
bination. After the convention Robinson 
avenged himself by looking up the birth 
record of Col. Walker, whom he suspected 
of not being of constitutional age to fill the 
office of Lieutenant-Governor. Upon ob- 
taining conclusive proof that Walker was 
in fact ineligible on account of his youth, 
Robinson caused the State committee to be 
called together for the purpose of remov- 
ing Walker from the ticket and naming 
some other gentleman for the place. When 
Walker learned what had taken place he 
cleverly averted action by the committee 
as to himself by graciously tendering his 
resignation which, as a matter of course, 
was promptly accepted. Abram A. Ham- 
mond, a. very estimable gentleman residing 
at Terre Haute, was selected to fill the va- 

The ticket placed In the field by the Re- 
publicans and People's Party organization 
was headed by Oliver P. Morton for Gov- 
ernor and Conrad Baker for Lieutenant- 
Governor. Though defeated at the Octo- 
ber election in 1856, it is worthy of note 
as a remarkable coincidence that both were 
• in subsequent years elected first to the 
office of Lieutenant-Governor and then to 
that of Governor. Morton had up to 1854 
been a Democrat; Baker's affiliation was 
with the Whigs. Both were forceful char- 

acters and particularly strong on the polit- 
ical rostrum. Professionally both gained 
considerable prestige as members of the 


Three Presidential tickets were in the 
field in 1856 — Buchanan and Breckinridge, 
Democratic; Fremont and Dayton, Re- 
publican; Fillmore and Donelson, Ameri- 
can. Fremont was the son-in-law of the 
famous Missouri Senator, Thomas H. Ben- 
ton, and upon the admission of California 
into the Union was chosen by the Demo- 
crats to represent that young common- 
wealth in the Senate of the United States. 
Buchanan had long been conspicuous in the 
public service and was deemed especially 
well equipped to fill the high office of 
President of the United States. Donelson 
enjoyed the distinction of having been the 
adopted son of General Andrew Jackson. 
Inasmuch as there was not the slightest 
probability of his election, the matter of 
special fitness for the office to which he 
was nominated as the running mate of 
Millard Fillmore was of minor importance. 

Indiana was quite conspicuous in the 
first Presidential convention of the newly 
organized Republican party in this, that it 
had for its permanent chairman Henry S. 
Lane, at that time the idol of his party. In 
the Democratic Presidential Convention, 
held at Cincinnati June 4, William Rock- 
hill, of Fort Wayne, was honored with the 
position of vice-president and James Elder, 
of Richmond, with that of assistant secre- 

On account of the close political relation- 
ship established in 1854 between Whigs, 
Freesoilers and Know-Nothings, no Fill- 
more State ticket was placed in nomina- 
tion. Therefore the October election was 
a contest between the Democrats and the 
People's party, the latter embracing the 
various elements that entered into a fusion 
arrangement two years prior. The result 
of this election is indicated in tabular form 
as set forth below : 



OFFICIAL VOTE FOR 1856. So far as the choice for Congressmen 

FOR GOVERNOR. '^^s concerned, it came close to being an 

Ashbel p. Willard, Democrat 117,981 5,842 even divide— six to five. 

Oliver P. Morton, People's 112,139 


Abram A. Hammond, Democrat 116,717 5,097 

Conrad Baker, People's 111,620 The State elections held in October clear- 

FOR SECRETARY OF STATE 'y foreshadowed the election of Buchanan 

Daniel McClure, Democrat 118,241 8,191 and Breckinridge in November. The Dem- 

John W. Dawson, People's 110,050 ocrats having carried both Pennsylvania 

FOR AUDITOR OF STATE. ^"*^ Indiana, the chances of the nevi^ly or- 

r> T 1. -nr T^ jj T^ x fianco c ^no ganlzed Republlcan party sweeping the 

Gen. John W. Dodd, Democrat 117,953 6,678 " .^ ,.,n, 

E. W. H. Ellis, People's 111,275 country Without the aid of these two 

"October States" must have appeared 

FOR TREASURER OF STATE. j^^^^j^^^ .^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ .^ .^ ^^.^^^^ ^^^^ 

Aquilla Jones, Democrat. . . 118,052 6,664 tremendous strides made by the cham- 

William R. Noffsmger, People's 111,388 . ^^ , ^ , . ^r ,, , 

pions of Fremont and Dayton m New York 

FOR ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF STATE. ^^^ ^^her States was quite bewildering to 

Joseph E. McDonald, Democrat.... 113,439 8,171 forecasters and prognosticators. Of the 

James H. Cravens, People's 103,268 Western States, Indiana and Illinois alone 

FOR SUPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. were able to withstand the tide. The ver- 

Prof. Wm. C. Larrabee, Democrat.. 117,640 6,329 diet of Indiana is expressed by these 

Charles Barnes, People's 111,311 figures : 


,, J ^ T, 4. 110 0KQ ^7 fiAQ Buchanan and Breckinridge. 118,670 

Gordon Tanner, Democrat 118,258 7,008 , , t^ , o/or,r 

-,,,,..',, 1WH orfi Fremont and Dayton 94,375 

John A. Stein, People's 111,250 ■' „„ „o^ 

' Fillmore and Donelson 22,386 


„,.„. „ Tj 1 T^ i ^ 1 o nnn r, -, nr, Buchanan s vote exceeded that ot Pre- 

William S. Beach, Democrat 118,297 7,177 

John A. Beal, People's 111,120 mont and Fillmore combined by nearly 


THE VOTE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. \r, ^, .. ^, ^._ • t ,- 

T 1 1, X T^ X -.nnAH Annn Truth ot the matter IS, Indiana was at 

James Lockhait. Democrat 12,747 4,770 ,, , ,. , „ , . ,. , 

James Veach, People's 7,977 ^hat time far from being radical on the 

W. H. English, Democrat 10,577 2,650 slavery question. As a rule, Whigs who 

John M. Wilson, People's 7,927 basked in the sunshine of William Henry 

James Hughes, Democrat 10,629 1,516 Harrison were more pro-slavery than was 

John A^ Hendricks, People's 9,113 ^^^^ ^^ ^^ Democrats ; or, to put it differ- 

James B. Foley, Democrat 10,451 1,452 ,, ,, ' ., 

William Cumback, People's 8,999 ^ntly, there was more Freesoil sentiment 

Edmund Johnson, Democrat 7,183 among Democrats of the Whitcomb and 

David Kilgore, People's 11,132 3,949 Wright school than there was among 

James M. Gregg, Democrat 11,787 947 Whigs of the Harrison school. This was 

John Coburn. People's. . 10,840 emphasized by the action of the Indiana 

John G. Davis, Democrat 11,137 1,608 , , ,. . ^ ..,„,„ 

John P. Usher, People's 9,529 delegation in Congress in 1848, when, on 

Daniel w. Voorhees, Democrat 11,072 the 2 1st day of December, Daniel Gott, a 

James Wilson, People's 11,302 230 Representative in Congress from the State 

William Z. Stuart, Democrat 11,890 of New York, introduced the following 

Schuyler Colfax, People's 12,926 1,036 resolution: 

Robert Lowry, Democrat 9,989 

Samuel Brenton, People's 10,699 710 "Whereas, The traffic now prosecuted in 

William Carver, Democrat 10,443 this metropolis of the Republic in human 

John U. Pettit, People's 11,235 792 beings, as chattels, is Contrary to natural 



I 8 1 G - 1 9 1 6 

justice and the fundamental principles of 
our political system, and is notoriously a 
reproach to our country throughout 
Christendom, and a serious hindrance to 
the progress of Republican liberty among 
the nations of the earth ; therefore, 

"Resolved. That the committee for the 
District of Columbia be instructed to re- 
port a bill as soon as practicable, prohibit- 
ing the slave trade in said District." 

The vote on this resolution stood, 98 
yeas and 88 nays. The Indiana delegation 
at that time was composed of Elisha 
Embree, Thomas J. Henley, John L. Rob- 
inson, Caleb B. Smith, William W. Wick, 
George G. Dunn, Richard W. Thompson, 
John Pettit, Charles W. Cathcart, William 
Rockhill. Six of these were Democrats 
and four Whigs. Those voting for the Gott 
resolution were Cathcart, Embree, Henley, 
Pettit, Robinson, Rockhill — -five Demo- 
crats and one Whig. Those voting "No" 
were Dunn and Thompson. Not voting: 
Smith and Wick. In later years Caleb B. 
Smith became a member of Lincoln's 
Cabinet, and Richard W. Thompson served 
as Secretary of the Navy under President 

Among those who voted for the Gott 
resolution was Horace Greeley, who had 
but a few weeks before been elected to 
Congress to fill a vacancy. The surprising 
feature of the proceeding was that Abra- 
ham Lincoln, serving a single term in 
Congress from 1847 to 1849, recorded his 
vote in opposition to the Gott resolution. 
Not a single vote from the slave-holding 
States was recorded in its favor, and only 
eighteen Representatives from the free 
States allied themselves with the Southern- 
ers in voting "No." That Abraham 
Lincoln, subsequently immortalized as the 
"great emancipator," should be found 
among these eighteen will no doubt afford 
amazement to thousands to whom this re- 
cital of a generally unknown historic fact 
may serve as a genuine if not startling 

YEAR OF 1858. 

Perhaps the most interesting convention 
held up to that time by the Indiana De- 
mocracy was that which convened in the 
city of Indianapolis on historic Jackson 
Day, in the year 1858. It was at a time 
when excitement over the slavery question 
ran high, when lines began to be sharply 
drawn and when diverging roads were be- 
ing chosen by Democrats. The "irre- 
pressible conflict" over the slavery question 
made itself felt among Democrats who, up 
to that time, had cherished the hope that 
the spirit of compromise and conciliation 
might continue to hover over Democratic 
councils and Democratic gatherings, and 
that fatal division, for years dimly visible, 
might yet be averted. 

The temper of the 1858 convention was 
in the main admirable. For the sake of 
party peace, men of strong convictions 
graciously yielded individual opinions as 
to forms of expression on burning issues, 
trusting that affairs might so shape them- 
selves as yet to make it possible to proceed 
harmoniously to the solution of the 
weighty problems that engrossed the 
thought and attention of the ablest minds 
of the land. 

Though the vote of Indiana in the Cin- 
cinnati convention of 1856 was cast as a 
unit for James Buchanan, the inference is 
not warranted that Buchanan was the real 
choice of all the delegates from this State. 
Among them were a goodly number of 
admirers and adherents of the "Little 
Giant," Stephen A. Douglas. They be- 
lieved in him ; they had genuine admiration 
for his extraordinary ability and his 
superb qualities of leadership. The unit 
rule prevented them from recording their 
individual votes for the idolized leader of 
the Illinois Democracy; they yielded per- 
sonal preference to the conclusions of the 

( 183 ) 


19 1 

When an irreconcilable conflict arose 
between President Buchanan and Senator 
Douglas with reference to the Kansas- 
Nebraska question, Democratic sentiment 
in Indiana was not slow in asserting itself 
on the side of Douglas in championing 
what was then known as "popular sov- 
ereignty" — the right of the people of a 
Territory applying for admission into the 
Union to decide for or against the intro- 
duction of slavery. By lending assistance 
to the slave power in the effort to estab- 
lish slavery in Kansas, any number of 
those who in 1856 had voted for Buchanan 
and Breckinridge became pronounced 
opponents of the Buchanan administration 
in its attempt to foist the Lecompton con- 
stitution on the people of Kansas Terri- 
tory. The administration policy, however, 
had strong support in the two United 
States Senators, Jesse D. Bright and Gra- 
ham N. Fitch, in Governor Willard, in 
John L. Robinson, and other Federal 
officeholders, besides that always formid- 
able element which believes in "standing 
by the party, right or wrong." 

The convention was called to order by 
Joseph W. Chapman, member of the State 
Central Committee. Two distinguished 
gentlemen were put forward for the 
permanent chairmanship of the conven- 
tion — Governor Ashbel P. Willard and 
Congressman William S. Holman. The 
vote stood 338 for the Governor and 233 
for the Congressman. Willard having 
been known as an administration man, his 
triumph aff'orded undisguised satisfaction 
to that side of the house. The action of 
the convention in shaping up the platform 
casts some doubt upon the accuracy of 
measurement of strength as to Willard 
and Holman in the matter of factional 

Much of the convention's time was de- 
voted to the consideration and discussion 
of the platform. In course of the ani- 
mated debate General Lew Wallace, of 
Montgomery, offered a resolution in favor 

of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, asserting 
that "by practical application of that bill 
the people of a State or a Territory should 
be, as they are inalienably, invested with 
the right of ratifying or rejecting, at the 
ballot box, any constitution that may be 
framed for their government; and that 
now and hereafter no Territory should be 
admitted into the Union, as a State, with- 
out a fair expression of the will of its 
people being first had upon the constitu- 
tion accompanying the application for 

Daniel W. Voorhees spoke sustaining the 
resolutions as they had been adopted, 
maintaining they were the policy of the 
administration and contending that the 
people of Kansas were competent to settle 
their own affairs. The Indianapolis Sen- 
tinel, in commenting on this speech, stated 
that Voorhees was effective and concili- 
atory, his well-toned declarations carrying 
conviction to the mind and heart of every 

W. S. Holman counseled moderation and 
insisted on the right of the States and 
Territories to establish and maintain their 
own institutions. 

J. W. Chapman, of Jefferson county, 
reported for the committee to which the 
resolution had been submitted as still 
being in favor of the great doctrine of the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, that the people 
should have the opportunity of ratification 
or rejection, and contending that the same 
should accorhpany their application for 

0. K. Dougherty, of Morgan county, 
submitted a minority report reiterating 
as above, but contending that evidence of 
such exercise or refusal should accompany 
the application for admission. 

General Wallace then withdrew his mo- 
tion to lay the report of the majority and 
minority on the table and moved that his 
original resolution be submitted therefor, 
which carried 317 to 199. 




The report as amended was adopted, as 
follows: 378 ayes to 114 noes: 

"Resolved, That we are still in favor of 
the great doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill; and that by a practical application of 
that doctrine the people of a State or of a 
Territory are vested with the right of 
ratifying or rejecting, at the ballot box, 
any constitution that may be formed for 
their government ; and that, hereafter, no 
Territory should be admitted into the 
Union as a State without a fair expression 
of the will of the people being first had 
upon the constitution accompanying the 
application of admission." 

Notwithstanding the fact that such men 
as Lew Wallace and Judge Holman ex- 
pressed themselves as well satisfied with 
the foregoing declaration, there was still 
marked dissatisfaction over the spirit and 
phraseology of certain parts of the resolu- 
tions. This was emphasized by Aquilla 
Jones, a lifelong friend of Thomas A. 
Hendricks, in declining to accept a re- 
nomination to the office of State Treasurer 
unanimously bestowed on him. In adopt- 
ing this course, Mr. Jones declared that 
"one of the vital principles of the Demo- 
cratic party must have either been omitted 
or asserted in such a manner as to be 
susceptible of an equivocal construction." 


1. John Hargrove, Gibson county. 

2. Michael C. Kerr, Floyd. 

3. Joseph W. Chapman, Jefferson. 

4. John L. Robinson, Rush. 

5. Lafe Develin, Wayne. 

6. Charles W. Hall and John Elder, Marion. 

7. Daniel W. Voorhees, Vigo. 

8. James H. Stewart, Carroll. 

9. O. Everts, Laporte. 

10. Samuel W. Sprott, DeKalb. 

11. Wilson Smith, Wabash. 
John R. Elder, chairman. 


For Secretary of State — Daniel McClure, Morgan 

For Auditor — John W. Dodd, Grant county. 
For Treasurer — Nathaniel F. Cunningham, Vigo 


For Superintendent of Public Instruction — Samuel 
L. RuK'g, Allen county. 

For Attorney-General — Joseph E. McDonald, Mont- 
gomery county. 

For Supreme Court Judges — Samuel E. Perkins, 
Marion; Andrew Davison, Decatur; James M. 
Hanna, Sullivan; James L. Worden, Whitley. 

The campaign was marked by consider- 
able vigor, both parties putting forth 
strong efforts to carry the State. Though 
many members of the organization still 
manifested a disposition to pose as a 
People's party, the name Republican grad- 
ually became more agreeable to the rank 
and file and was finally accepted. The 
Republican ticket for 1858 was made up 
of these widely-known gentlemen: 

Secretary of State — William A. Peelle, Ran- 
dolph county. 

Auditor of State — Albert Lange of Terre 

Treasurer of State — John H. Harper of South 

Attorney-General — William T. Otto of New 

Superintendent of Public Instruction — John 
Young, Indianapolis. 

Supreme Judges — Horace P. Biddle, Logans- 
port; Abram W. Hendricks, Madison; Simon 
Yandes, Indianapolis; William D. Griswold, Terre 

Territorially, these selections could 
hardly have been better chosen. The 
ticket was generally pronounced a strong 
one, even its most pronounced opponents 
conceding its availability. Placing a 
capable and popular German living in 
Terre Haute on the ticket for State Au- 
ditor was especially adjudged a fine stroke 
of policy. Nevertheless the ticket went 
down in defeat — not by heavy majorities, 
yet sufficiently so to serve all practical 
purposes. Indiana simply was not yet 
ready to be placed in the Republican 


Secretary of State— McClure, 107,409; 
Peelle, 104,828. 

Auditor— Dodd. 107,242; Lange, 105,- 




Treasui-er — Cunningham, 107,634 ; Har- 
per, 105,416. 

Attorney-General— McDonald, 107,291 ; 
Otto, 105,757. 

Superintendent of Public Instruction — 
Rugg, 107,910; Young, 105,014. 
Judges Supreme Court — 

Worden, 107,681 ; Biddle, 104,582. 
Davison, 107,608; Hendricks, 104,- 

Perkins, 108,158 ; Yandes, 104,086. 
Hanna, 107,076 ; Griswold, 104,965. 


There was something of a shakeup in 
the composition of the Congressional 
delegation, though it could hardly have 
been designated as partaking of a revolu- 
tionary character. The new men who 
came in were James Hughes, William M. 
Dunn, Wm. S. Holman, Albert G. Porter 
and Charles Case. Wm. H. English made 
his last race. Four triumphant elections 
seemingly satisfied his ambition. He 
gained quite a reputation as a national 
legislator during the eight years of his 
service in the halls of Congress. Political 
upheavals didn't seem to affect his candi- 
dacy at any time ; a nomination in his case 
meant an election. After the breaking out 
of the war he moved to Indianapolis, en- 
gaged in banking, and in course of time 
accumulated a large -fortune. He would 
have made an excellent Governor, but 
never aspired to that office. His eyes were 
fixed upon the Presidency of the United 
States, but he did not get farther in this 
direction than the obtainment of the 
nomination for Vice-President in 1880, 
when the gallant Winfield Scott Hancock 
was defeated for the Presidency by the 
scholarly James A. Garfield. That result 
was due to the folly of the Democrats 
failing to renominate the "old ticket" of 
1876. No power on earth could have pre- 
vented a vindication of the majesty of the 
ballot through the triumphant re-election 
of Tilden and Hendricks. 

After the election of Buchanan to the 
Presidency, a general impression prevailed 
that Indiana would be honored with a 
Cabinet position. Senator Bright and 
Governor Wright were under considera- 
tion. The former naturally preferred to 
remain in the Senate to being placed at 
the head of the State Department. Not 
being overly blessed with the world's 
goods. Governor Wright decided not to 
accept the Secretaryship of the Interior, 
for which he was so eminently qualified. 
He, however, indicated a willingness to 
go to Europe in the capacity of Ambassa- 
dor to Prussia. This was quite agreeable 
to Senator Bright, as it put the wide ocean 
between him and the man who had given 
him so much trouble politically for so long 
a time. Buchanan made the appointment 
quite willingly, and Bright, for reasons 
stated, saw to it that Wright's appoint- 
ment was promptly confirmed by the 
Senate. Ambassador Wright made an 
excellent record as such. 

GRESS FROM 1817 TO 1861 
(March 4, 1817-March 3, 1819.) 
Senate — 10 Federalists, 34 Democrats; total, 44. 
House — 57 Federalists, 128 Democrats; total, 185. 


(March 4, 1819-March 3, 1821.) 

Senate— 10 Federalists, 36 Democrats; total, 46. 

House— 42 Federalists, 145 Democrats; total, 187. 


(March 4, 1821-March 3, 1823.) 

Senate — 7 Federalists, 41 Democrats; total, 48. 

House— 58 Federalists, 129 Democrats; total, 187. 


(March 4, 1823-March 3, 1825.) 

Senate — 40 Democrats, 8 Whigs; total, 48. 

House — 72 Federalists, 141 Democrats; total, 213. 


(March 4, 1825-March 3, 1827.) 

Senate— 38 Democrats, 10 Whigs; total, 48. 

House— 79 Federalists, 134 Democrats; total, 213. 

( 186 ) 


18 16-1916 

(March 4, 1827-March 3, 1829.) 
Senate — 37 Democrats, 11 Whigs; total, 48. 
House — 85 Federalists, 128 Democrats; total, 213. 

(March 4, 1829-March 3, 1831.) 
Senate — 38 Democrats, 10 Whigs; total, 48. 
House — 142 Democrats, 71 Whigs; total, 213. 

(March 4, 1831-March 3, 1833.) 
Senate— 3.5 Democrats, 13 Whigs; total, 48. 
House — 130 Democrats, 83 Whigs; total, 213. 

(March 4, 1833-March 3, 1835.) 
Senate — 30 Democrats, 18 Whigs; total, 48. 
House— 147 Democrats, 93 Whigs; total, 240. 

(March 4, 1835-March 3, 1837.) 
Senate — 33 Democrats, 19 Whigs; total, 52. 
House — 144 Democrats, 98 Whigs; total, 242. 

(March 4, 1837-March 3, 1839.) 
Senate — 31 Democrats, 18 Whigs, 3 Independ- 
ents; total, 52. House — 117 , Democrats, 115 
Whigs, 10 Independents, 1 vacancy; total, 242. 

(March 4, 1839-March 3, 1841.) 
Senate — 22 Democrats, 28 Whigs, 2 Independ- 
ents; total, 52. House— 103 Democrats, 132 
Whigs, 6 Independents, 1 vacancy; total, 242. 

(March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843.) 
Senate — 22 Democrats, 28 Whigs, 2 Independ- 
ents; total, 52. House — 103 Democrats, 132 
Whigs, 6 Independents, 1 vacancy; total, 242. 

(March 4, 1843-March 3, 1845.) 
Senate — 23 Democrats, 29 Whigs; total, 52. 
House— 142 Democrats, 81 Whigs; total, 223. 


(March 4, 1845-March 3, 1847.) 

Senate — 30 Democrats, 25 Whigs, 1 vacancy; 

total, 56. House— 141 Democrats, 78 Whigs, G 

Americans; total, 225. 

(March 4, 1847-March 3, 1849.) 
Senate— 37 Democrats, 21 Whigs; total, 58. 
House — 108 Democrats, 115 Whigs, 4 Independ- 
ents; total, 227. 


(March 4, 1849-March 3, 1851.) 

Senate— 35 Democrats, 25 Whigs, 2 Free Soil; 

total, 62. House— 116 Democrats, 111 Whigs; 

total, 227. 


(March 4, 1851-March 3, 1853.) 

Senate— 36 Democrats, 23 Whigs, 3 Free Soil; 

total, 62. House— 140 Democrats, 88 Whigs, 5 

Free Soil; total, 233. 

(March 4, 1853-March 3, 1855.) 
Senate— 38 Democrats, 22 Whigs, 2 Free Soil; 
total, 62. House — 159 Democrats, 71 Whigs, 4 
Free Soil; total, 234. 

(March 4, 1855-March 3, 1857.) 
Senate — 42 Democrats, 15 Republicans, 5 Amer- 
icans; total, 62. House — 83 Democrats, 108 Re- 
publicans, 43 Americans; total, 234. 

(March 4, 1857-March 3, 1859.) 
Senate— 39 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 5 Amer- 
icans; total, 64. House — 131 Democrats, 92 Re- 
publicans, 14 Americans; total, 237. 

(March 4, 1859-March 3, 1861.) 
Senate — 38 Democrats, 26 Republicans, 2 Amer- 
icans; total, 66. House — 101 Democrats, 113 Re- 
publicans, 23 Americans; total, 237. 

[Chapter XXVI.] 





IGNS of the times in 1858 

Si pointed unmistakably to the in- 
I auguration of a new era in 
1 1 Indiana politics. The leaven 
was working. The culmination 
could not be far in the dis- 

Weeks before the assembling of the 
State convention, fixed by the proper au- 
thorities upon Wednesday, January 11, 
1860, Democrats throughout the State de- 
termined to take part in the deliberations 
of this representative body. The friends 
as well as the enemies of Stephen A. 
Douglas had become thoroughly aroused 
and quietly but resolutely resolved to take 
a hand in deciding who should be entrusted 
with the leadership of the National De- 
mocracy, in so far as this could be 
determined by the Democratic sovereigns 
of the Hoosier commonwealth. So intense 
had become the feelings of the warring 
elements that the carrying of deadly 
weapons was by not a few considered an 
essential part of complete and self-justifi- 
able equipment. 

Seven counties had sent double delega- 
tions. These were Hancock, Jackson, 
Jennings, Laporte, Lawrence, Randolph 
and Spencer. The presence of the largest 
number of accredited delegates yet as- 
sembled in any State convention rendered 
expedient and necessary the adoption of a 
rule that only delegates, candidates for 
office, members of the press and members 
of the State Central Committee be ad- 
mitted to Metropolitan Hall, in which the 
convention was ordered to be held. The 
supporters of Douglas had come to an 
understanding that Judge Robert Lowry, 
then proprietor of the Goshen Democrat, 

must be made permanent chairman of the 
great convention. Obstacles were in the 
way, but by judicious management these 
were removed. Joseph W. Chapman 
rapped the assembly to order. General 
Lew Wallace put Lowry in nomination 
for temporary chairman. This was quick- 
ly followed by a motion that a permanent 
instead of a temporary chairman be 
elected. The convention was thrown into 
confusion, amidst which Governor Willard 
sought to sway the vast assembly by his 
persuasive eloquence. In this he was 
frustrated by apt rejoinders to his catchy 
phrases. Pointed reminders that he was 
not an accredited delegate and therefore 
not entitled to the floor were fired at him. 
This elicited an ofi'er from White county 
to make the Governor one of its delegates. 
Finally the difficulty found adjustment by 
the Marion county delegation announcing 
a vacancy in its ranks and the election of 
Governor Willard to fill the same. There- 
upon Governor Willard gained recognition 
by the Chair and immediately proceeded 
to nominate for permanent chairman 
Judge Samuel E. Perkins, of Indianapolis. 
This motion was presented in the form of 
an amendment to the pending motion. 

Gordon Tanner, of Jackson county, 
gained the floor and said he "would not 
try to amend if a direct vote was to be 
taken between Judge Lowry and Judge 
Perkins — Judge Lowry, the friend of 
Stephen A. Douglas, and Judge Perkins 
as the administration candidate." 

Finally the vote was taken. It resulted 
in 1891/2 votes for Lowry and 1741/. for 
Perkins. A motion to make Lowry's elec- 
tion the unanimous action of the conven- 
tion was adopted by acclamation. J. J. 


19 16 

Bingham, of Indianapolis; John B. Nor- 
man, of New Albany; S. A. Hall, of 
Logansport, and Geo. E. Greene, of Vin- 
cennes, were made secretaries of the 
convention. All of them were editors and 
stanch supporters of the "Little Giant." 

So much time was consumed in the 
transaction of routine business, the selec- 
tion of a committee on resolutions, etc., 
that the convention readily assented to an 
adjournment to the following morning. 


Dr. Norman Eddy, Lafe Develin, 

Chairman, A. C. Handy, 

A. T. Whittlesey, G. F. Coolcerly, 

Dr. W. F. Sherrod, B. F. Schermerhorn, 

Paris C. Dunning, Andrew Ellison, 

Marcus Levy, David Studabaker. 


Feeling continued to be intense, though 
more calm. The friends of Douglas felt 
assured that they had won the battle, but 
they also felt that they must not rest on 
their oars nor be found napping. 


1. J. G. Gavitt, Vanderburg county. 

2. Michael C. Kerr, Floyd. 

3. Thomas R. Cobb, Lawrence. 

4. J. J. Schroyer, Dearborn. 

5. C. E. Shipley, Delaware. 

6. J. J. Bingham, Marion. 

7. B. W. Hanna, Vigo. 

8. B. F. Schermerhorn, Carroll. 

9. Norman Eddy, St. Joseph. 

10. A. W. Myers, Whitley. 

11. J. S. Shirley, Grant. 

A. B. Palmer, Indianapolis, Chairman. 


Col. John C. Walker, of Laporte, offered 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That while we pledge the 
support of the Democracy of Indiana to 
the nominee of the Charleston convention, 
whomsoever he may be, the delegates to 
that body from this State are instructed 
to cast their votes as a unit for Stephen A. 
Douglas, and to all honorable means 
in their power to secure his nomination." 

United States Marshal John L. Robin- 

son moved to amend by striking out the 
name of Douglas and inserting that of 
Joseph Lane. 

An amendment was offered that each 
Congressional district appoint its dele- 
gates with or without instructions; that 
the convention instruct delegates-at-large, 
and also all delegates to vote as a unit, a 
majority determining their attitude. The 
amendment was lost 160 to 236. The 
Walker resolution was then adopted — 
ayes, 265; noes, 129. 

This definitely fixed Indiana's attitude 
with reference to the Democratic Presi- 
dential nomination. It served as a prelude 
to the formal declaration embodied in the 
platform agreed upon and reported by the 
committee on resolutions. The platform 
bears evidence of having been carefully 
considered, sentence by sentence, and as 
having been constructed by men of ex- 
ceptional ability. As an entirety it may 
fairly be pronounced a masterpiece of 
political pronouncement, in accord with 
the then dominant sentiment of the In- 
diana Democracy. From a literary point 
of view it excelled any of the platforms 
thitherto adopted by any preceding State 
convention. The party's preference for 
Stephen A. Douglas was set forth in this 
ringing declaration : 

"Resolved, That as a statesman of tried 
character, and a citizen in whom all sec- 
tions of the Union may confide their 
interests, as the friend and supporter of 
our rights at home and our honor abroad, 
and in the sincere conviction that we will 
thereby contribute to secure to all sections 
of the Union, and each of the States, their 
just and equal rights and their full share 
in the benefits of our Federal Union, and 
in no sectional spirit, but in the expansive 
love of our whole country, the Democracy 
of Indiana present to the convention of 
the American Democracy to assemble at 
Charleston as their choice for nomination 
as a candidate for the Presidency of the 
United States, the name of Stephen A. 
Douglas, of Illinois, and believing him to 
be the preference of an overwhelming ma- 
jority of our people, we hereby instruct 
the delegates this day appointed by us to 


1 8 1 () - 1 9 1 () 

that convention to cast their votes in his 
favor as a unit so long as his name is 
before the convention, and to use all hon- 
orable efforts to secure his nomination ; 
and the delegation is also instructed to 
vote as a unit upon all questions which 
may come before that body as a majority 
of the delegates may determine." 


At Large — Robert Lowry, E. M. Huntington, 
Samuel H. Buskirk, James B. Foley. 

Contingents — James B. Fulwiler, John Mc- 
Manana, Jeremiah Smith, Joseph P. Edson. 

1. Smith Miller and John S. Gavitt. 

2. J. B. Norman and S. K. Wolfe. 

3. H. W. Harrington and Paris C. Dunning. 

4. J. V. Bemusdaffer and C. B. Bentley. 

5. Lafe Develin and W. W. Frybarger. 

6. W. H. Talbott and J. M. Gregg. 

7. Dr. Ezra Read and Henry K. Wilson. 

8. L. B. Stockton and Maj. I. C. Elston. 

9. G. Hathaway and S. A. Hall. 

10. Pliny Hoagland and George W. McConnell. 

11. William Garver and John R. Coffroth. 

The Eleventh district adopted resolu- 
tions declaring for Douglas, or some other 
conservative man entertaining the same 
views on the Territorial question, if 
Douglas is not chosen ; and that their dele- 
gates in no case vote for a man entertain- 
ing the view that the Constitution of the 
United States carries or establishes 


Electors-at-Large — Cyrus L. Dunham, Jackson 
county, and John C. Walker, Laporte county. 

Contingents — A. A. Hammond and Paris C. 

1. James M. Shanklin, Vanderburg county. 

2. Thomas M. Brown, Floyd. 

3. James S. Hester, Brown. 

4. Daniel D. Jones, Franklin. 

5. William A. Bickle, Wayne. 

6. Alexander B. Conduitt, Morgan. 

7. William M. Franklin. Owen. 

8. William C. Kise, Boone. 

9. Robert P. Effinger, Miami. 

10. William S. Smith, Allen. 

11. Andrew Jackson, Madison. 

Colonel Cyrus L. Dunham, who had 
been appointed Secretary of State by 

Governor Willard in 1859 to (ill the 
vacancy occasioned by the resignation of 
Daniel McClure, affiliated with the Bu- 
chanan wing of the party. As such he 
became an avowed aspirant to the nom- 
ination for Governor. Though pronounced 
in his views as to party policy, he was 
neither an extremist nor a factionist. He 
believed in subordinating personal views 
to the will of the majority; in being 
"regular." When it became apparent that 
the Douglas wing was clearly and unmis- 
takably in the ascendancy, he not only 
abandoned his candidacy for the Gov- 
ernorship, but rose in the convention, and 
in a forceful, eloquent speech moved that 
Thomas A. Hendricks be nominated by 
acclamation. This generous action on the 
part of Colonel Dunham aroused intense 
enthusiasm and had much to do with 
creating a harmonious spirit in framing 
up the ticket in its entirety. Without 
serious friction the ticket was completed 
by naming Judge David Turpie, of White 
county, for Lieutenant-Governor; William 
H. Schlater, of Richmond, for Secretary 
of State; Joseph Ristine, of Fountain 
county, for Auditor; Nathaniel F. Cun- 
ningham, of Terre Haute, for Treasurer; 
Oscar B. Hord, of Greensburg, for Attor- 
ney-General; Samuel L. Rugg, of Fort 
Wayne, for Superintendent of Public In- 
struction; Cornelius O'Brien, of Law- 
renceburg, for Clerk of the Supreme 
Court, and Michael C. Kerr, of New Al- 
bany, for Reporter of the Supreme Court. 
Mr. Hendricks was the unanimous 
choice of the supporters of Douglas. Al- 
ways conciliatory and consen-ative, Mr. 
Hendricks, while unequivocally the choice 
of the admirers of the "Little Giant," was 
not offensive or even objectionable to the 
moderate adherents of the Buchanan 
policy. Resigning the office of Land Com- 
missioner, which he held part of the time 
under the Pierce and Buchanan adminis- 
trations, avowedly for the purpose of 
re-entering upon the practice of law, he 


had freed himself of obligation implied in 
administration affiliation and was thus 
unhampered in the expression of whatever 
views he might hold with reference to 
party policy. The wisdom of his counsel 
was made manifest by the selection of 
Colonel Dunham as an Elector-at-Large, 
though not at the time altogether appar- 
ent to the fiery element of the Douglas 
following. Dunham verified the excellence 
of Mr. Hendricks' judgmeni; by taking 
the stump in favor of the regular Demo- 
cratic ticket and delivering a series of 
very eff'ective speeches. Strong efforts 
were made by Senator Bright to induce 
Colonel Dunham to decline the electorship 
candidacy and join the Breckinridge 
forces; but though the ties of friendship 
between these two men were strong and 
of long tenure, Colonel Dunham stood 
firm, and throughout the campaign ap- 
pealed with fervid eloquence to Democrats 
to stand unflinchingly by the regular or- 

The campaign from opening to close 
was intensely earnest, thrillingly interest- 
ing and unrestrictedly determined. No 
Presidential nominee, not excepting 
Henry Clay, had, up to that time, had 
more devoted or enthusiastic supporters 
than Stephen A. Douglas. His captivat- 
ing personality, his striking physiognomy, 
his massive head, and his persuasive elo- 
quence made him the idol of those who 
rallied under his banner. That his cour- 
ageous defiance of the slave power and his 
heroic resistance to the attempt to force 
slavery upon Kansas drew to him thou- 
sands of Democrats who felt ill at ease 
under the imposition of policies incon- 
sistent with the teachings of Jefferson, 
Van Buren and Tilden, had become plain- 
ly apparent. These men felt that the time 
had come to command a halt and they as- 
serted themselves in no uncertain manner. 

The Indiana delegation to the Charles- 
ton and Baltimore conventions stood 
manfully by the "Little Giant." On their 

part there was no wavering, no sign of 
timidity or lack of courage. Both at 
Charleston and later on at Baltimore they 
stood unflinchingly by their guns. When, 
at the close of the drama at Baltimore, it 
had become apparent to them that the 
party to which they were so strongly 
wedded and for which they had fought so 
many political battles, would in all prob- 
ability meet with defeat at the polls in 
October and in November, they started 
upon their homeward journey with the in- 
flexible determination to do all that could 
be done to make as good a showing at the 
polls as was possible to be done. 

The adjourned session at Baltimore be- 
gan June 18. Three days were consumed 
in wrangling over the platform. That dis- 
posed of, followed by the withdrawal of 
the Southern Secessionists and a small 
number of sympathizers from the North, 
the nomination of Douglas was easily 
effected by an almost unanimous vote. 
Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Ala- 
bama, was nominated for the Vice-Presi- 
dency, but promptly declining the 
proffered honor, Herschel V. Johnson, of 
Georgia, was substituted by the National 
Committee, hastily summoned for the pur- 
pose of filling the vacancy. 

Vexed by Senator Bright's "pernicious 
activity" in working up opposition to the 
regular nominees of the party, both State 
and national, the leaders decided that un- 
usual energy must be injected into the 
campaign. The middle of July a mass 
meeting was held at Indianapolis to ratify 
the nomination of Douglas and Johnson. 
Twenty thousand enthusiastic Democrats 
gathered at the State capital to give ex- 
pression to their feelings. The speakers 
at this meeting were : Governor Willard, 
Senator Geo. E. Pugh of Ohio, Congress- 
man C. L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Sam- 
uel R. Hamill of Sullivan, Thomas A. 
Hendricks, Richard J. Ryan and Judge W. 
W. Wicks. Mr. Ryan introduced a resolu- 
tion which, after some discussion, passed 
in this form: 



"Resolved, That we, the Democracy of 
Indiana, in mass convention assembled, 
unanimously condemn the course of all 
those who are endeavoring to disorganize 
the Democratic party of Indiana by their 
opposition to the regular nominees of the 
Democratic National Convention, Stephen 
A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson." 

The Indianapolis Sentinel fought vali- 
antly for the regular ticket. Here is a 
sample of its onslaughts on the Secession- 
ists. It is quoted from the Sentinel's issue 
of July 20 : 

"The fact that Breckinridge and Lane 
are the candidates for the disunionists 
cannot be successfully denied. Those of 
the North who seek to defeat Douglas 
swear that Breckinridge and Lane are 
Union men, but the supporters of those 
candidates at the South talk differently. 
The Montgomery (Ala.) Mail thus openly 
avows the purpose for which Breckinridge 
and Lane have been nominated. That 
paper says : 

Run three presidential tickets against Lincoln, 
thereby giving Lincoln the best chance to be 
elected. After I^incoln is elected some Southern 
communities — most of them perhaps — will refuse 
to let the postmasters appointed under his admin- 
istration take possession of the office. Then the 
United States authorities will interpose to "en- 
force the law." Then the United States authori- 
ties will either be shot upon or they will shoot 
somebody down. Then the people of the com- 
munity will arise up against the United States 
Government and will be sustained by neighboring 
communities until a civil war, with all its horrible 
butcheries, envelops the land in a shroud of blood 
and carnage." 

According to the Sentinel of September 
20, the friends of Breckinridge and Lane 
"Held a meeting in Indianapolis on 
Monday last and adopted the following 
resolutions : 

Resolved, That it would be inexpedient at this 
time to place a national Democratic State ticket 
in the field for State officers. 

Resolved, That in view of the conciliatory over- 
tures which have from time to time been made to 
the friends of Mr. Douglas in this State and re- 
jected by them, if the present State ticket be 
defeated they alone will be responsible for the 

"Resolutions signed by W. H. Talbott, 
chairman, and John R. Elder, secretary." 

The Sentinel went on to say that both 
of these gentlemen were members of the 
Democratic State Convention on the 11th 

of January last and the candidates upon 
the Democratic ticket were their choice 
and received their cordial support. 

An imposing Douglas demonstration 
was held at Indianapolis September 28. 
It attracted thousands of the "Little 
Giant's" admirers to the State capital. 
He arrived the evening before, and was 
greeted by a large and enthusiastic crowd. 
Being tired out by exhaustive campaign- 
ing, he retired to his room at the Bates 
House, but at the earnest solicitation of 
the vast crowd appeared on the balcony. 
After a few fitting allusions to Hoosier 
fidelity and enthusiasm, Senator Douglas 
excused himself and returned to his room. 

Attorney-General Joseph E. McDonald 
then introduced Governor David Todd, of 
Ohio, who presided over the convention at 
Baltimore after Caleb Gushing, of Massa- 
chusetts, had vacated the Chair and 
seceded, accompanied by Ben Butler. Gov- 
ernor Todd delivered a speech that elicited 
unbounded enthusiasm. He was followed 
by C. A. Schaefer, of Ohio, and the bril- 
liant Indianapolis orator, Richard J. Ryan. 

The vast concourse that did honor to 
Senator Douglas afforded high elation to 
his supporters. The parade was an im- 
mense affair. It was under command of 
Captain John M. Lord, as chief marshal, 
whose Indianapolis assistants were Cap- 
tain Love, H. H. Dodd, John F. Gulick, 
Capt. H. Prosser, Gen. W. J. Elliott, Dr. 
A. D. Gall, Samuel Hesselgesser, J. B. 
Ryan, Capt. M. North, S. M. McCarty, 
Wm. Wilkinson, Charles Howland, Samuel 
A. Todd, Frank Cunningham, Reginald H. 
Hall, Jacob Mull, George W. Pitts, JuHus 
Boetticher, John Stumph and Daniel C. 

Assistant marshals for the State at 
large were George E. Greene, Col. T. G. 
Lee, Gen. L. Druley, Gen. J. B. Foley, 
Gen. J. P. Drake, Gen. W. D. Allen, Capt. 
Lew Wallace, Geo. W. Spitler, Dr. Geo. W. 
McConnell, Gen. D. Moss, Capt. Z. Berry, 
Lafe Develin, Nathaniel Lord, Jr., Michael 

7— History 


Inasmuch as neither the Breckinridge party, therefore the propriety and advisa- 

and Lane people nor the Bell and Everett bility of honoring Lane with first place on 

supporters placed a State ticket in the the ticket. It seemed also to have been 

field — being content with revealing their tacitly understood, if not positively 

strength through electoral tickets — the agreed, that in the event of the Republi- 

contest in Indiana, up to the time of the cans securing a majority in the Legisla- 

October election, was squarely between ture, Mr. Lane was to be chosen United 

the tickets headed, respectively, by States Senator, to succeed Graham N. 

Thomas A. Hendricks and Henry S. Lane. Fitch, and that Oliver P. Morton would 

REPUBLICAN STATE TICKET. then be afforded opportunity to serve 

almost the entire term as Governor. The 

Governor— Henry S. Lane, Crawfords- fulfillment of this agreement, implied or 

ville. real, was rendered possible by the result 

Lieutenant-Governor— Oliver P. Mor- of the election, carrying with it, for the 
ton, Centerville. first time, the election of the entire Re- 
Secretary of State— William A. Peelle, publican State ticket and a clear majority 
Winchester. of the Legislature. 

Auditor of State — Albert Lange, Terre 

Haute. OFFICIAL VOTE, 1860. 

Treasurer of State — Jonathan Harvey, GOVERNOR. 

Clark county. Lane 136,725 9,757 

Attorney-General— James G. Jones, Hendricks 126,968 


Superintendent of Public Instruction — Morton 136,470 10,178 

Miles J. Fletcher, Putnam county. Turpie 126,292 

Reporter of the Supreme Court — Benja- AUDITOR, 

man Harrison, Indianapolis. Lange 136,007 9,646 

Clerk of the Supreme Court— John Paul Ristine 126,361 

Jones, Lagrange. SECRETARY OF STATE. 

It will be remembered that Oliver P. Peelle 136,190 9,610 

Morton was his party's nominee for Gov- Schlater 126,580 

ernor in 1856. When the time came for TREASURER OF STATE. 

nominating the ticket in 1860, it was a Harvey 137,640 10,526 

question of expediency as to whether he Cunningham 126,514 

should be assigned to first or second place. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 

The argument that finally prevailed was INSTRUCTION. 

that, in view of the fact that Henry S. Fletcher 137,129 11,383 

Lane had been chosen United States Sen- ^"^g 125,746 

ator by Fusion members of the General ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

Assembly and denied admission by the Jones 131,472 8,201 

Senate at Washington on the ground of ""'"'^ ^-^'^^^ 

irregularity, he should head the ticket. REPORTER OF SUPREME COURT. 

Attention was further directed to the fact Harrison 134,924 9,688 

that he was active in the Mexican war and ^^"" 125,236 

that he enjoyed the sustained reputation CLERK OF SUPREME COURT. 

of being among Indiana's most eloquent ^°"^^ 132,933 10,120 

orators. Fudhermore, a larger number °'^^''^" ^^2,813 

of Whigs than Democrats had found their In the election of members of Congress 

way into the newly organized Republican the Republicans were successful in seven 



of the eleven districts. The Democrats 
elected John Law in the First district, 
James A. Cravens in the Second, William 
S. Holman in the Fourth and Daniel W. 
Voorhees in the Seventh. The Republicans 
clothed with congressional prerogatives 
William M. Dunn in the Third district, 
George W. Julian in the Fifth, Albert G. 
Porter in the Sixth, Albert S. White in the 
Eighth, Schuyler Colfax in the Ninth, 
William Mitchell in the Tenth and John 
Peter Cleaver Shanks in the Eleventh. 
In passing it may be stated that of the 
eleven gentlemen chosen as representatives 
in Congress from Indiana in the year 
1860, William Mitchell, a banker residing 
at Kendallville, was alone in being made 
a single termer. He was defeated for re- 
election in 1862 by Joseph K. Edgerton 
of Fort Wayne. 


There is a marked difference in the vote 
cast at the October election for Governor 
and other State officers and the vote cast 
at the November election for presidential 
electors. Lincoln had two thousand more 
than Lane, while Douglas fell twelve 
thousand behind Hendricks' vote. This 
would seem to make clear that the 12,295 
Democrats who voted for Breckinridge 
had generously cast their ballots for Mr. 
Hendricks. How the Bell and Everett 
supporters distributed their favors at the 
October election the good Lord only knows. 
This is the vote for Presidential electors: 

Lincoln and Hamlin 139,033 

Douglas and Johnson 115,509 

Breckinridge and Lane 12,295 

Bell and Everett 5,306 

The Presidential electors chosen by the 
Republicans and who cast the vote of In- 
diana for Lincoln and H. Hamlin were: 

At Large — William Cumback of Decatur 
and John L. Mansfield of Jefferson. 

1. Cyrus M. Allen, Knox county. 

2. John W. Ray, Knox. 

3. Morton C. Hunter, Monroe. 

4. John H. Farquar, Franklin. 

5. Nelson Trusler, Fayette. 

6. Reuben A. Riley, Hancock. 

7. John Hanna, Putnam. 

8. Samuel A. Huff, Tippecanoe. 

9. James N. Tyner, Miami. 

10. Isaac Jenkinson, Allen. 

11. David O. Dailey, Huntington. 

The Breckinridge organization for In- 
diana consisted of an electoral ticket and 
a State Central Committee. The nominees 
for electors were : 

At Large — James Morrison, Marion, 
and Delano R. Eckles. 

1. R. A. Clements, Daviess county. 

2. Dr. W. F. Sherrod, Orange. 

3. Daniel Sheeks, Monroe. 

4. Ethelbert Hibben, Rush. 

5. Samuel Orr, Delaware. 

6. Franklin Hardin, Johnson. 

7. James A. Scott, Putnam. 

8. Col. W. M. Jenners, Tippecanoe. 

9. James Bradley, Laporte. 

10. Robert Breckinridge, Jr., Allen. 

11. John R. Coffroth, Huntington. 


J. B. Gardner, Levi Sparks, Geo. W. 
Kyle, Dr. B. F. Mullen, Alex. White, John 
R. Elder, James M. Tomlinson, Julius 
Nicolai, James Johnson, James M. Oliver, 
Thomas Wood, Thomas D. Lemon, G. F. R. 
Woodleigh, Dr. F. B. Thomas. 

Under the caption, "The Result," the 
Indianapolis Sentinel of November 7 com- 
mented thus apprehensively on the out- 
come of the Presidential election : 

"The telegraphic returns of the election 
yesterday indicate that Lincoln has been 
chosen President by the vote of the people. 
It is probable he will have the entire 
electoral vote of all the Northern States. 
This is the first time in the history of the 
country that a President has been elected 
by a sectional and geographical party. Its 
effect will be to array one section of the 
Union in antagonism to the other. The 
issue has come which the leading men of 
the South have declared will be sufficient 
and justifiable for disunion. A few 
weeks will determine whether we shall be 
divided into separate confederacies or 
remain united States. Perhaps it is as 
well to try the strength of the Union, of 
the national Government, now as any 


other time. If it survives this struggle 
there will be but little danger of disrup- 
tion in the future." 

When the Secessionists left the conven- 
tion hall at Charleston, and later on at 
Baltimore, and decided to nominate a 
ticket of their own, they knew full well 
what they were about and what the effect 
of their action would be. They knew that 
by dividing the Democratic party the 
triumph of the Republicans would be 
assured. Their hostility to Stephen A. 
Douglas was as flimsy as it was malignant. 
They used their groundless animosity to 
Douglas as a pretext for disrupting the 
Democratic party, and later on used the 
product of their own connivance, the elec- 
tion of Lincoln, as a pretext for disrupting 
the Union. In their madness to perpetu- 
ate slavery they worked the destruction of 
that institution. It is ever thus: When 
greed dethrones reason, it inflicts upon 
itself the greatest of all penalties — 


There was substantial agreement among 
capable judges of forensic eloquence that 
Governor Ashbel P. Willard was the most 
accomplished, most effective and most 
persuasive orator in the State. As Gov- 

ernor of the commonwealth he proved him- 
self an administrator of discernment and 
marked ability. He was an intense par- 
tisan, yet fair-minded and just in the 
performance of duty. Though in the main 
considered a supporter of the Buchanan 
administration, he refused absolutely to 
become a party to waging war upon the 
organization when it chose Stephen A. 
Douglas as the national leader. He coun- 
seled moderation and conciliation. His 
health had been impaired; vitality was 
slowly but surely ebbing away. In the 
hope of prolonging his tenure on earth he 
went to Minnesota. But the trip had been 
delayed too long to produce the hoped- 
for result. Disease was gnawing at his 
vitals and refused to release its hold at 
the bidding of the bracing air of the 
Northwest. On the 4th of October, 1860, 
he was suddenly taken worse, and on the 
evening of that day he breathed his last. 
Then and there passed from the face of 
the earth one of the brightest intellects of 
that period. Under the constitution of the 
State, Abram A. Hammond became 
acting Governor, serving as such until re- 
lieved in January, 1861, by Henry S. Lane, 
who a few days later was succeeded by 
Oliver P. Morton. 

[Chapter XXVIL] 



HATEVER personal views may 
have been entertained by men 
affiliated with the Democratic 
party during the tumultuous 
agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion, there can be no question 
as to the historic attitude of the 
party with reference to the indestructibil- 
ity of the American Union. In other 
words, the right of a State to nullify the 
laws of the United States or to secede 
from the Union has ever been stoutly de- 
nied by the illustrious statesmen who have 
been recognized and venerated as expound- 
ers of Democratic principles. Within this 
category come such men as Jefferson, 
Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, Tilden, 
Douglas and Cass. 

Unreserved approval was accorded at 
the beginning of the struggle for the main- 
tenance of the Federal Union to this dec- 
laration, formulated by Senator Andrew 
Johnson of Tennessee and formally 
adopted by the Senate of the United States 
on the 24th day of July, 1861 : 

"Resolved, That the present deplorable 
Civil War has been forced upon the coun- 
try by the disunionists of the Southern 
States now in revolt against the Constitu- 
tional Government and in arms around the 
Capitol; that in this national emergency 
Congress, banishing all feeling of mere 
passion or resentment, will recollect only 
its duty to the whole country; that this 
war is not prosecuted on our part in any 
spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose 
of conquest or subjugation, nor for the 
purpose of antagonizing or interfering 
with the rights of established institutions 
of those States, but to defend and main- 
tain the supremacy of the Constitution 
and all laws made in pursuance thereof, 
and to preserve the Union with all the 

dignity, equality and rights of the States 
unimpaired ; that as soon as these objects 
are accomplished the war ought to cease." 
If any one man may have been consid- 
ered authorized to speak for his party at 
that critical period in our country's history, 
that man was Stephen A. Douglas, the 
chosen leader and gallant standard-bearer 
in the memorable campaign of 1860. When 
it had become apparent that war between 
North and South was inevitable. Senator 
Douglas left Washington to deliver a series 
of public addresses on his way to Chicago. 
Accompanied by his charming wife, he 
spoke in several of the more important 
cities along his route, including Indiana- 
polis. Reaching his home city, Chicago, 
for the upbuilding of which he had done so 
much, he was met at the depot by an im- 
mense assemblage of citizens of all parties, 
who insisted on escorting him in 
procession to the great Wigwam which 
had already been packed by an audi- 
ence of fully ten thousand eager hear- 
ers. It was there on a beautiful May day 
(the first) where the "Little Giant" de- 
livered his last speech, for soon after its 
delivery he was attacked with an acute 
disease from which he died on the morning 
of June 4, 1861, shortly after the comple- 
tion of his forty-eighth year. His last 
words were: "Tell Stevie and Robbie 
(his sons) to obey the laws and support 
the Constitution of the United States." 


"Mr. Chairman — I thank you for the 
kind terms in which you have been pleased 
to welcome me. I thank the committee 
and citizens of Chicago for this grand and 


1 6 

imposing reception. I beg you to believe 
that I will not do you nor myself the in- 
justice to believe this magnificent ovation 
is personal homage to myself. I rejoice 
to know that it expresses your devotion 
to the Constitution, the Union, and the 
flag of our country. (Cheers.) 

"I will not conceal gratification at the 
uncontrovertible test this vast audience 
presents — that what political difi'erences 
or party questions may have divided us, 
yet you all had a conviction that when the 
country should be in danger, my loyalty 
could be relied on. That the present dan- 
ger is imminent, no man can conceal. If 
war must come — if the bayonet must be 
used to maintain the Constitution — I can 
say before God my conscience is clean. I 
have struggled long for a peaceful solu- 
tion of the difficulty. I have not only 
tendered those States what was theirs of 
right, but I have gone to the very extreme 
of magnanimity. 

"The return we receive is war, armies 
marched upon our capital, obstructions 
and dangers to our navigation, letters of 
marque to invite pirates to prey upon our 
commerce, a concerted movement to blot 
out the United States of America from the 
map of the globe. The question is. Are 
we to maintain the country of our fathers, 
or allow it to be stricken down by those 
who, when they can no longer govern, 
threaten to destroy? 

"What cause, what excuse do disunion- 
ists give us for breaking up the best Gov- 
ernment on which the sun of heaven ever 
shed its rays? They are dissatisfied with 
the result of a Presidential election. Did 
they never get beaten before? Are we to 
resort to the sword when we get defeated 
at the ballot-box? I understand it that the 
voice of the people expressed in the mode 
appointed by the Constitution must com- 
mand the obedience of every citizen. They 
assume, on the election of a particular 
candidate, that their rights are not safe in 
the Union. What evidence do they present 
of this? I defy any man to show any act 
on which it is based. What act has been 
omitted to be done? I appeal to these as- 
sembled thousands that so far as the 
constitutional rights of the Southern 
States — I will say the constitutional rights 
of slaveholders — are concerned, nothing 
has been done, and nothing omitted, of 
which they can complain. 

"There has never been a time from the 

day that Washington was inaugurated 
first President of these United States, 
when the rights of the Southern States 
stood firmer under the laws of the land 
than they do now ; there never was a time 
when they had not as good a cause for 
disunion as they have today. What good 
cause have they now that has not existed 
under every administration? 

"If they say the Territorial question — 
now, for the first time, there is no act of 
Congress prohibiting slavery anywhere. 
If it be the non-enforcement of the laws, 
the only complaints that I have heard have 
been of the too vigorous and faithful ful- 
filment of the Fugitive Slave Law. Then 
what reason have they? 

"The slavery question is a mere excuse. 
The election of Lincoln is a mere pretext. 
The present secession movement is the re- 
sult of an enormous conspiracy formed 
more than a year since, formed by leaders 
in the Southern Confederacy more than 
twelve months ago. 

"They use the slavery question as a 
means to aid the accomplishment of their 
ends. They desired the election of a 
Northern candidate, by a sectional vote, in 
order to show that the two sections cannot 
live together. When the history of the two 
years from the Lecompton charter down 
to the Presidential election shall be writ- 
ten, it will be shown that the scheme was 
deliberately made to break up this Union. 

"They desired a Northern Republican to 
be elected by a purely Northern vote, and 
then assign this fact as a reason why the 
sections may not longer live together. If 
the disunion candidate in the late Presi- 
dential contest had carried the united 
South, their scheme was, the Northern 
candidate successful, to seize the Capitol 
last spring, and by a united South and 
divided North, hold it. That scheme was 
defeated in the defeat of the disunion can- 
didate in several of the Southern States. 

"But this is no time for a detail of 
causes. The conspiracy is now known. 
Armies have been raised, war is levied to 
accomplish it. There are only two sides to 
the question. Every man must be for the 
United States or against it. There can be 
no neutrals in this war; only patriots — or 

"Thank God, Illinois is not divided on 
this question. (Cheers.) I know they ex- 
pected to present a united South against a 
divided North. They hoped, in the North- 


em States, party questions would bring 
civil war between Democrats and Repub- 
licans, when the South would step in with 
her cohorts, aid one party to conquer the 
other, and then make easy prey of the vic- 
tors. Their scheme was carnage and civil 
war in the North. 

"There is but one way to defeat this. In 
Illinois it is being so defeated by closing 
up the ranks. War will thus be prevented 
on our own soil. While there was a hope 
of peace, I was ready for any reasonable 
sacrifice or compromise to maintain it. 
But when the question comes of war in the 
cotton fields of the South or the corn fields 
of Illinois, I say the farther off the better. 

"We cannot close our eyes to the sad and 
solemn fact that war does exist. The Gov- 
ernment must be maintained, its enemies 
overthrown, and the more stupendous our 
preparations the less the bloodshed, and 
the shorter the struggle. But we must re- 
member certain restraints on our actions 
even in time of war. We are a Christian 
people, and the war must be prosecuted in 
a manner recognized by Christian nations. 

"We must not invade Constitutional 
rights. The innocent must not suffer, nor 
women and children be the victims. Sav- 
ages must not be let loose. But while I 
sanction no war on the rights of others, I 
will implore my countrymen not to lay 
down their arms until our own rights are 
recognized. (Cheers.) 

"The Constitution and its guarantees 
are our birthright, and I am ready to en- 
force that inalienable right to the last ex- 
tent. We cannot recognize secession. 
Recognize it once and you have not only 
dissolved government, but you have de- 
stroyed social order, upturned the founda- 
tions of society. You have inaugurated 
anarchy in its worst form, and will shortly 
experience all the horrors of the French 

"Then we have a solemn duty — to main- 
tain the Government. The greater our 
unanimity the speedier the day of peace. 
We have prejudices to overcome from the 
few short months since of a fierce party 
contest. Yet these must be allayed. Let 
us lay aside all criminations and recrimina- 
tions as to the origin of these difficulties. 
When we shall have again a country with 
the United States flag floating over it, and 
respected on every inch of American soil, 
it will then be time enough to ask who and 
what brought all this upon us. 

"I have said more than I intended to say. 
(Cries of 'Go on.') It is a sad task to dis- 
cuss questions so fearful as civil war; but 
sad as it is, bloody and disastrous as I 
expect it will be, I express it as my convic- 
tion before God that it is the duty of every 
American citizen to rally round the flag of 
his country. 

"I thank you again for this magnificent 
demonstration. By it you show you have 
laid aside party strife. Illinois has a proud 
position — united, firm, determined never 
to permit the Government to be destroyed." 
(Prolonged cheering.) 


When the Democrats met in State Con- 
vention at Indianapolis, January 8, there 
were but few among the most sagacious 
delegates who believed it to be possible to 
carry the State at the October election. 
Two days were devoted to transacting the 
business for which the convention had 
been called. The first day's session was 
chiefly devoted to the discussion of a mo- 
tion offered by ex-Congressman Wm. H. 
English that an adjournment be taken 
until July 4, which motion was warmly 
seconded by Cyrus L. Dunham. The prop- 
osition was vigorously opposed and was 
voted down. This was followed by a 
wrangle over the election of a permanent 
chairman. Joseph W. Chapman had been 
chosen temporary chairman. Grafton F. 
Cookerly of Terre Haute proposed 
Thomas A. Hendricks for the permanent 
chairmanship. Congressman John G. 
Davis of Parke and Robert D. Walpole 
of Indianapolis were also put in nomina- 
tion. Walpole's name was withdrawn, 
whereupon Joseph E. McDonald in a verj^ 
tactful speech moved that Mr. Hendricks 
be chosen by acclamation to preside over 
the convention. This motion prevailed. 
Upon taking the chair Mr. Hendricks de- 
livered an unusually lengthy address. 
Among other points made by him were 
these : 


"The civil war is upon us. For its exist- 
ence the Democratic party is not responsi- 
ble. For many years we have admonished 
those who favored a sectional party of its 
danger — in the sentiment of Washington's 
farewell address that the greatest danger 
to our country was the formation of geo- 
graphical parties — we have advocated 
'those doctrines which we believed fair 
and equal to all sections; a change could 
have been adopted without wounding the 
pride or stimulating the arrogance of 
either.' Our appeals were disregarded. 
Sectional pride, prejudice and hatred in 
one section produced the same sentiments 
in the other, and of this sectional strife 
was begotten our present troubles. The 
war is upon us — 'wickedly provoked on the 
one side, and in folly and sin and without 
sufficient cause commenced on the other.' 
With secession upon the one hand and sec- 
tional interference with Southern rights 
upon the other, we hold no sympathy. Our 
most earnest desire is for the restoration 
of the Union upon the basis of the Consti- 
tution, and for myself I will give an honest 
support to all Constitutional and proper 
measures adopted by the administration to 
that end; and I will as earnestly oppose 
all acts in violation of the Constitution and 
in suppression of liberty because of my 
veneration for that solemn compact of our 
fathers, and because such policy renders 
the Union impossible; by obliterating the 
Union sentiment of the South and giving 
aid and comfort to its enemies." 

At the conclusion of Mr. Hendricks' ad- 
dress Joseph J. Bingham was made per- 
manent secretary, with R. S. Hastings of 
Lafayette as assistant. 

Mr. Cookerly moved that each Congres- 
sional district name a vice-president of 
the convention. Judge Pettit opposed this 
motion, saying that there was no neces- 
sity for naming vice-presidents. Mr. 
Cookerly replied that the custom of thus 
selecting vice-presidents had prevailed 
for years, and he knew of no good reason 
why this time-honored practice should 
not be continued. The convention, how- 
ever, coincided in the view of Judge Pettit 
and defeated the motion for the selection 
of vice-presidents. 


1. James D. Williams, Knox county. 

2. Michael C. Kerr, Floyd. 

3. M. W. Shields, Jackson. 

4. George Hibben, Rush. 

5. Edmund Johnson, Henry. 

6. J. J. Bingham, George McQuat, Marion. 

7. Thomas Dowling, Vigo. 

8. R. S. Hastings, Tippecanoe. 

9. J. A. Taylor, Cass. 

10. S. W. Sprott, Dekalb. 

11. J. R. Coffroth, Huntington. 


Seventeen planks were put into the plat- 
form, as agreed upon by the committee 
on resolutions. The platform in its en- 
tirety was objectionable to a goodly num- 
ber of Democrats, chief among whom were 
Gov. Joseph A. Wright, Wm. H. English, 
Cyrus L. Dunham, James Hughes, Henry 
Seebirt, Judge David S. Gooding, Col. W. 
A. Bickle, Judge A. C. Downey, Gen. Ebe- 
nezer Dumont, Gen. Lew Wallace, Col. 
John T. Wilder, Charles W. Cathcart, 
Robert Dale Owen, Gen. Alvin P. Hovey, 
James M. Gregg, Col. Norman Eddy, An- 
drew Jackson and J. B. Fulwiler. The main 
points of the platform are set forth in the 
planks herewith reproduced : 

"That we are unalterably attached to 
the Constitution, by which the Union of 
these States was formed and established, 
and that a faithful observance of its prin- 
ciples can alone continue the existence of 
the Union, and the permanent happiness 
of the people. 

"That the present civil war has mainly 
resulted from the long continued, unwise 
and fanatical agitation in the North of the 
question of domestic slavery, the conse- 
quent organization of a geographical party, 
guided by the sectional platforms adopted 
at Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and 
Chicago, and the development thereby of 
sectional hate and jealousy, producing (as 
has long been foreseen and predicted by 
us) its counterpart in the South of seces- 
sion, disunion and armed resistance to the 
General Government, and terminating in 
a bloody strife between those who should 
have been forever bound together by fra- 
ternal bonds, thus bringing upon the whole 



country a calamity which we are now to 
meet as loyal citizens, striving for the 
adoption of that mode of settlement best 
calculated to again restore union and 

"That in rejecting all propositions likely 
to result in a satisfactory adjustment of 
the matters in dispute between the North 
and the South, and especially those meas- 
ures which would have secured the border 
slave States to the Union, and a hearty co- 
operation on their part in all constitutional 
and legal measures to procure a return of 
the more Southern States to their al- 
legiance, the Republican party assumed a 
fearful responsibility and acted in total 
disregard of the best interests of the whole 

"That if the party in power had shown 
the same desii'e to settle, by amicable ad- 
justment, our internal dissensions before 
hostilities had actually commenced, that 
the administration has recently exhibited 
to avoid war with our ancient enemy, Great 
Britain, we confidently believe that peace 
and harmony would now reign throughout 
all our borders. 

"That the maintenance of the Union 
upon the principles of the Federal Consti- 
tution should be the controlling object of 
all who profess loyalty to the Government, 
and in our judgment this purpose can only 
be accompiished by the ascendancy of a 
Union party in the Southern States, which 
shall, by a counter revolution, displace 
those who control and direct the present 
rebellion. That no effort to create or sus- 
tain such a party can be successful which 
is not based upon a definite settlement of 
the question at issue between the two sec- 
tions ; and we therefore demand that some 
such settlement be made by additional con- 
stitutional guarantee, either initiated by 
act of Congress or through the medium of 
a National convention. 

"That the Republican party has fully 
demonstrated its inability to conduct the 
Government through its present difficul- 

"That we are utterly opposed to the twin 
heresies. Northern sectionalism and South- 
ern secession, as inimical to the Constitu- 
tion; and that freemen, as they value the 
boon of civil liberty and the peace of the 
country, should frown indignantly upon 

"That in this national emergency the 
Democracy of Indiana, banishing all feeling 

of passion and resentment, will recollect 
only their duty to the whole country ; that 
this war should not be waged in the spirit 
of conquest or subjugation, nor for the 
purpose of overthrowing or interfering 
with the rights or institutions of the 
States, but to defend and maintain the 
supremacy of the Constitution, and to pre- 
serve the Union with all the dignity, equal- 
ity and rights of the several States unim- 
paired, and that as soon as these objects 
are accomplished the war ought to cease. 

"That we will sustain, with all our ener- 
gies, a war for the maintenance of the Con- 
stitution, and of the integrity of the Union 
under the Constitution ; but we are opposed 
to a war for the emancipation of the 
negroes or the subjugation of the Southei-n 

"That the purposes avowed and advo- 
cated by the Northern disunionists, to lib- 
erate and arm the negro slaves, is uncon- 
stitutional, insulting to loyal citizens, a dis- 
grace to the age, is calculated to retard the 
suppression of the rebellion and meets our 
unqualified condemnation. 

"That the disclosures made by the in- 
vestigating committee in Congress of the 
enormous frauds that have stalked into the 
army and navy departments, implicating 
the heads of those departments in a con- 
nivance at, if not an actual participation 
in, a system of corruption, and in which 
our brave soldiers have been defrauded of 
their proper supplies, and our Government 
threatened with bankruptcy, demands a 
thorough investigation into all our expendi- 
tures, both State and National, and that 
a speedy and marked example be made of 
all such 'birds of prey,' who, taking ad- 
vantage of the necessities of our country, 
have fed and fattened upon public plunder. 

"That the meritorious conduct of the 
Indiana troops, in every battlefield where 
the victory has perched upon the national 
banner, has filled the people of this State 
with the highest gratitude to her gallant 
sons, and that we send our best wishes to 
officers and men, dispersed throughout the 
country, and the heartfelt greetings gf 
every Democrat for their further brilliant 
achievements in the coming contests for 
the maintenance of the Constitution and 
the Union." 

There was considerable doubt about 
Oscar B. Hord's willingness to again make 



- 1 

the race for Attorney-General. But he 
graciously yielded to the pressure brought 
upon him to accept. The ticket finally 
agreed upon consisted of these widely- 
known gentlemen: Dr. J. S. Athon for 
Secretary of State, Joseph Ristine for 
Auditor, Matthew L. Brett for Treasurer, 
Oscar B. Hord for Attorney-General, 
Samuel L. Rugg for Superintendent of 
Public Instruction, and Michael C. Kerr for 
Reporter of the Supreme Court. 


The dissatisfaction over some of the 
planks in the platform adopted at the 
January convention seems to have been 
sufficiently pronounced to have made it 
clear that the calling of another conven- 
tion had become expedient, if not abso- 
lutely necessary. This was done. A mass 
convention was provided for. July 30 
was the date fixed therefor. The State- 
house grove was chosen as the place for 
holding the meeting. Democrats came 
from all over the State, on foot, by trains, 
wagons and carriages. It was estimated 
that from forty to fifty thousand were 
present. Col. Thomas Dowling of Terre 
Haute called the convention to order and 
Thomas A. Hendricks was chosen Presi- 
dent by acclamation. In part Mr. Hen- 
dricks said: 

"We are surrounded by troubles. Our 
society is in an excited condition; and it 
is the duty of every man ; it is the duty of 
every good citizen ; it is the duty of every 
good patriot, to maintain the public peace: 
and, as the presiding officer of this meet- 
ing, I make my appeal to every man that 
he consider himself a committee to main- 
tain good order on this occasion. Gentle- 
men, no man is a good Democrat unless he 
is a good citizen and a patriot. If that be 
true, every Democrat, from his heart, will 
endeavor to preserve the utmost good order 
on this occasion." 

Joseph J. Bingham, editor of the Senti- 
nel, was designated to serve as secretary. 


Chairman Hendricks was authorized to 
name as members of the committee on 
resolutions eleven representative Demo- 
crats, one from each Congressional dis- 
trict. This committee was composed of 
these distinguished representative Dem- 
ocrats: James D. Williams, John B. 
Winstanley, Samuel H. Buskirk, Major 
Anderigg, Lafe Develin, Judge S. E. Per- 
kins, Judge Wm. M. Franklin, E. F. Lucas, 
P. M. Kent, Samuel W. Sprott and John 
R. Coffroth. 

The committee's report appears to have 
met with general approval. It contained 
these declarations, which were enthusiast- 
ically adopted by unanimous vote: 

"1. That we adhere to the time-honored 
principles of the Democratic party, and 
we believe that the only hope for the 
restoration of the Union and the main- 
tenance of the Constitution is in the 
restoration of that truly conservative 
party in power. 

"2. That this convention endorse as 
worthy of all confidence the persons nom- 
inated by the delegate convention which 
assembled at Indianapolis on the 8th of 
January, 1862, and that we recommend 
them to the people as honest, capable and 
faithful to the Constitution. 

"3. That the Constitution, the American 
Union and the laws made under and by the 
authority of the Constitution must be pre- 
served and maintained in their power and 
rightful supremacy — that the rebellion 
now in arms against them must be sup- 
pressed and put down, and that it is the 
duty of all good citizens to aid the General 
Government in all measures necessary and 
proper to that end. 

"4. That the Democracy of Indiana with 
patriots everywhere have made and will 
continue to make every sacrifice to the end 
that the rebellion may be suppressed and 
the supremacy of the Constitution main- 
tained and the Union under it preserved, 
but they are unalterably opposed to a war 
of conquest or subjugation, and they will 
never consent that the war on their part 
shall be waged for the purpose of interfer- 
ing with the rights or overthrowing the 
established institutions of any of the 
States. In the language of Senator Doug- 

(202 ) 


las, uttered at Chicago a few days before 
his death, 'We must not invade constitu- 
tional rights. The innocent must not suf- 
fer nor women and children be victims. 
Savages must not be let loose.' " 

The speakers for this great outpouring 
of Indiana Democrats were C. A. Wickliffe 
of Kentucky, John S. Carlisle of Virginia, 
and Senator Wm. A. Richardson of Illi- 
nois, who was Stephen A. Douglas' trusted 
manager in the Charleston and Baltimore 
conventions and who, by reason of these 
intimate relations and his sterling worth 
and conceded ability, became the "Little 
Giant's" immediate successor in the Sen- 
ate of the United States. 


The foregoing resolutions placed the 
party in much better position and in a 
far more favorable light than it had been 
up to that period. At the same time there 
was issued by authority of the State 
Central Committee an address so judi- 
ciously and patriotically worded as to have 
produced a marked change in public sen- 
timent. The demonstration of July 30 
and the spirited address promulgated by 
Chairman McQuat made it possible for 
the Democratic party of Indiana to appeal 
with confidence to the suffrages of the 
people. The way was thus paved for vic- 
tory. The mistakes of January were cor- 
i-ected by the mighty voice of a patriot- 
ically aroused Democracy. This vigorously 
written document is well worth studious 
perusal, even though more than a half 
century has passed since it was given 
publicity : 
"To the People of Indiana on the Crisis of 

the Country: 

"We address you in the midst of a crisis 
imminent with peril to the institutions of 
our beloved country. In doing so, we cle- 
sire to discard all party feelings, and ap- 
peal only to the patriotic impulses of our 
countrymen. The Nation has had enough 
of party platforms and party measures to 
ruin and destroy even a stronger Govern- 

ment than this, founded, as we have been 
taught to believe it was, on the affections 
and consent of the people. Let us discard 
the platforms of party, and party itself, 
except so far as they are consistent with 
the preservation of the Union and the 
Constitution which makes us a Nation. If 
there be a sentiment in the creed of the 
Democratic organization, enunciated now 
or heretofore, which makes against the 
restoration of the UNION AS IT WAS, and 
the return of peace, we lay that sentiment 
and creed upon the altar of our beloved 
country and abandon it forever. There is 
no party platform, whether made at Balti- 
more or Chicago, 'which is a law with us,' 
and we deem no man, no Congress, no 
executive, a safe counselor who adhei-es to 
the single idea of a party in perilous times 
like these. We give all such consideration 
to the winds and regard them with ab- 
horrence. They shall have no place in our 
affections, and no sympathy in our hearts. 
Acting upon these convictions, we repudi- 
ate for ourselves and the great mass of the 
people of Indiana all and every party feel- 
ing, prejudice or opinion which shall come 
in conflict with the putting down of this 
rebellion, the return of peace and the com- 
plete restoration of the American Union 
in all its purity and vigor. 

"Sixty-six years ago, Washington, in his 
farewell address, gave to his countrymen 
this advice and solemn warning: 'In con- 
templating the causes which may distract 
our Union, it occurs, as a matter of serious 
concern, that any ground should have been 
furnished for characterizing parties by 
geographical discriminations — Northern 
and Southern, Atlantic and Western — 
whence designing men may endeavor to 
excite a belief that there is a real difference 
of local interests and views. One of the 
expedients of party to acquire influence 
within particular districts is to misrepre- 
sent the opinions and aims of other dis- 
tricts. You cannot shield yourselves too 
much against the jealousies and heart- 
burnings which spring from these misrep- 
resentations. They tend to render alien to 
each other those who ought to be bound 
together by fraternal affection.' 

"Need we say to the people of Indiana 
that the unwise disregard of this advice 
has been the immediate cause of the pres- 
ent deplorable civil war? The far-seeing 
wisdom of 'the Father of his Country' was 
never more vindicated than in that portion 


of his matchless address to his country- 
men. He foresaw that the restless spirit 
of faction and the disturbing elements of 
sectional strife would be used to plant dis- 
cord between the people of various States. 
Though that sainted patriot did not live 
to witness the wild fanaticism of his coun- 
trymen, his immediate successors in the 
Presidential chair were not so happy. The 
initiation of active agitation on the slavery 
question began as early as 1812, on the 
breaking out of the war with Great 
Britain, was continued or revived in 1819 
on the admission of Missouri, and from 
that period, with slight intermissions, it 
has been more or less thrust before the 
country, in some shape, befitting the views 
of the factions which grasped at it for their 
advancement to power. We have seen its 
effects in its dark progress to its present 
perilous heights. We have no desire to 
trace the slimy track of this agitation, and 
are content to remind our fellow-citizens 
that prudent men have been always dis- 
posed to leave the question of slavery 
where the Constitution left it — in the 
hands and in the keeping of those States 
(old or new) which admitted it as a part 
of their domestic policy. We assert no 
right over it. Having rejected slavery for 
Indiana as a matter of choice, her people 
claim no power to force it in or out of her 
sister States, leaving them to be the judge 
of what befits their local condition. This 
has been the doctrine of the Democratic 
party — it was the doctrine of the Whig 
party. It was the declared principle of 
Clay, Cass, Webster, Jackson, and that 
host of wise and conservative statesmen 
which reflected dignity and honor upon 
the American name. To stand by the doc- 
trines of Washington and his successors, 
we must be consistently Union men and 
avoid those snares of party and those de- 
vices of sectional agitation which render 
us 'alien to each other,' and thus destroy 
the goveriim.ent whiph makes us one peo- 
ple. We can use no better and more forci- 
ble language than that employed by the 
seventh President of the United States, 
when about leaving the cares of State, in a 
farewell address to his countrymen. It 
declares the whole duty of a true Ameri- 
can citizen. General Andrew Jackson, in 
that address, in speaking of this slavery 
agitation and its effect upon the United 
States, declared: 

But the Constitution cannot be maintained, nor 
the Union preserved, in opposition to public feel- 
ing, by the mere exertion of coercive powers con- 
fided to the general Government. The founda- 
tion must be laid in the affections of the people, 
in the security which it gives to life, liberty and 
property in every quarter of the country, and in 
the fraternal attachments which the citizens of 
the several States bear to one another as members 
of one political family, mutually contributing to 
promote the happiness of each other. Hence the 
citizens of each State should studiously avoid 
everything calculated to wound the sensibility or 
offend the just pride of the people of other States; 
and they should frown upon any proceedings 
within their own borders likely to disturb the tran- 
quillity of their political brethren in other por- 
tions of the Union. In a country so extensive as 
the United States, and in pursuits so varied, the 
internal regulations of the several States must 
frequently differ from one another in important 
particulars; and this difference is unavoidably in- 
creased by the principles upon which the American 
Colonies were originally planted — principles which 
had taken deep root in their social relations be- 
fore the Revolution, and therefore, of necessity, 
influencing their policy since they became free 
and independent States. But each State has the 
unquestionable right to regulate its own internal 
concerns according to its own pleasure; and while 
it does not interfere with the rights of the people 
of other States, or the rights of the Union, every 
State must be the sole judge of the measures 
proper to secure the safety of its citizens and 
promote their happiness: and in all efforts on the 
part of other people of other States to cast odium 
upon their institutions, and on all measures cal- 
culated to disturb their rights of property, or to 
put in jeopardy their peace and internal tran- 
quillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in 
which the Union was formed, and must endanger 
its safety. Motives of philanthropy may be 
assigned for this unwarrantable interference, and 
weak men may persuade themselves for a moment 
that they are laboring in the cause of humanity 
and asserting the rights of the human race; but 
every one, upon sober reflection, will see that 
nothing but mischief can come from these im- 
proper assaults upon the feelings and rights of 
others. Rest assured that men found busy in 
this v}ork of discord are not worthy of your con- 
fidence and deserve your strongest reprobation. 

"This was the language of a man who 
loved his country as he did his own life, 
and who periled that life for the glory and 
safety of his native land. They were spok- 
en while he filled the most exalted office in 
the gift of his countrymen, and just before 
the term for which he had been elected ex- 
pired. These words come to us as from 
the grave. Their author reposes, or all 
that was mortal of him, at the Hermitage, 
in "Tennessee, and if the spirits of the gal- 
lant dead are permitted to look down upon 
the affairs of earth, he is today contem- 
plating the ruin and desolation which the 
enemies of our institutions have brought 
upon his beloved country. We adopt his 



1 6 

language and re-echo his warning to those 
who love the Union and would save it for 
their children. We declare before heaven 
and in the hearing of men that our match- 
less Constitution and our beloved Union 
(in spite of Secessionists, Abolitionists and 
other powers of evil) must and shall be pre- 
served." GEO. McQUAT, Chairman. 


As the foregoing document was being 
read and studied, chances to carry the 
State constantly improved. When the re- 
sult of the October election became known 
it was found that the Democrats had elect- 
ed their entire State ticket by more than 
9,000 majority, had carried seven of the 
eleven Congressional districts, and se- 
cured the election of a Democratic Leg- 
islature which the following January 
chose Thomas A. Hendricks United States 
Senator for the long (six year) term and 
David Turpie for the short term, the latter 
expiring March 3, 1863. Both selections 
were made with the hearty approval of 
the Indiana Democracy. 

Indiana was by no means the only State 
in which was experienced a political up- 
heaval. Popular discontent over the slow 
progress made in subduing the rebellion 
had become so pronounced that an outlet 
had to be found. Somehow the impres- 
sion had forced itself upon the public 
mind that a political upheaval in favor of 
the Democrats would be interpreted as a 
declaration in favor of a more vigorous 
prosecution of the war. In fact, this ar- 
gument was freely advanced in nearly 
every State where campaigns were being 
vigorously conducted. I heard a Repub- 
lican Congressman of Pennsylvania, John 
C. Kunkel, of the Harrisburg district, say 
that the Republican party had been in 
power so short a time and had so little 
experience in Governmental control that 
he believed it to be good policy to turn 
the management of affairs over to the 
Democratic party with its many years of 
experience in governing. Whatever may 
have influenced the public mind, the elec- 

tion of 1862 resulted in a sweeping Dem- 
ocratic victory. New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and 
even Iowa rolled up majorities for the 
Democratic tickets. In the election of 
members of Congress the Democrats near- 
ly doubled their strength. By the adop- 
tion of a conflicting policy the following 
year, when C. L. Vallandigham of Ohio 
became a martyr to his extreme anti-war 
pronunciamentos, and extremists in other 
parts of the country did their utmost to 
imitate him, the gains made in 1862 were 
effectively neutralized and rendered nuga- 
tory. And the experience of 1868 had 
quite a bearing on the Presidential elec- 
tion in 1864. 


The aggregate Unconditional Union 
vote in 1862 was 18,342 less than the Re- 
publican vote of 1860, while the Union 
Democratic vote was increased by 1,163. 

FOR 1862. 

For Secretary of State — James S. Athon, Marion 

For Auditor of State — Joseph Ristine, Fountain 

For Treasurer of State — Matthew L. Brett, 
Daviess county. 

For Attorney General — Oscar B. Hord, Decatur 

For Supreme Court Reporter — Michael C. Kerr, 
Floyd county. 

For Superintendent of Public Instruction — Sam- 
uel L. Rugg, Allen county. 


For Secretary of State — William A. Peelle. 
For Auditor of State — Albert Lange. 
For Treasurer of State — Jonathan S. Harvey. 
For Attorney-General — Delana E. Williamson. 
For Superintendent of Public Instruction — John 

I. Morrison. 
For Reporter of the Supreme Court — William S. 


The election results for the several State 
officers were as follows : 



FOR SECRETARY OF STATE. had written a letter to Jeff Davis recom- 
James S. Athon, Democrat 127,977 9,591 mending a man named Lincoln to favor- 
William A. Peelle, Republican 118,386 ^ble Consideration in furnishing arms for 

FOR TREASURER OF STATE. use in the Confederate army. Governor 

Matthew L. Brett, Democrat 127,851 9,406 Morton appointed Gov. Joseph A. Wright 

Jonathan S. Harvey, Republican. . .118,445 ^^ fju ^j^g yacancy until the Legislature 

FOR AUDITOR OF STATE. could make an election for the remainder 

Jo.seph Ristine, Democrat 127,714 9,237 of Bright's term. Wright took his seat 

Albert Lange, Republican 118,477 ^yj^^^^j^ o^ jggg. The selection of Wright 

The following figures show how the was partly construed as a non-political act 

State of Indiana voted for members of and partly as a compliment to the war 

Congress in the election of 1862 : Democrats, of whom there were many. 

Plur. The Sentinel, on the other hand, treated it 

1st— John Law, Democrat 11,963 2,380 from a diiferent standpoint. At first that 

Alvah Johnson, Republican . . 9,583 ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ disinclined to speak in harsh 

2nd-James A. Cravens, Democrat 10,911 4,700 ^^ uncomplimentary terms of the appoint- 

Col. Allen May, Republican. . 6,211 , , ^ ... r^ -iit- ■ , j_ , , 

o J ti w tr • + r. iico^ ioQn ment, but after Govemor Wright had sav- 

3rd — Henry W. Harrmgton, Dem. 11,524 1,380 , ' , ,, r,., ,. t 

Wm. M. Dunn, Republican. . 10,144 ^gely denounced the 8th of January plat- 

4th-Wm. S. Holman, Democrat.. 10,926 2,934 form and contemptuously spat upon that 

Col. James Gavin, Union... 7,992 document, the Sentinel changed its atti- 

5th— Edmund Johnson, Democrat. 7,414 tude and poured hot shot into Governor 

George W. Julian, Republican 9,272 1,858 Morton's appointee. Singular as it may 

6th— Alexander B. Conduitt, Dem. 11,654 appear, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat also 

Ebenezer Dumont, Union... 12,525 871 seemed to be displeased over Wright's ap- 

7th— Daniel W. Voorhees, Dem.. . 12,517 2,481 pointment. Soon after taking his seat in 

Harvey D. Scott, Republican. 10,036 ^j^^ g^^^^^^^ y^^^^^ 3^ ^^j^j^^ delivered a 

8th-John Pettit, Democrat ... 11,181 ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ question of abolishing 

Godlove S. Orth, Republican. 12,00o 824 f . ^, t^. ; . ^ „ ^ , , . m, 

,,, ^ . , ^ . ^ ,, .,„ slavery m the District of Columbia. Ihe 

9th— David Turpie, Democrat 14,546 ^, , V _■ ,- , t^ 

Schuyler Colfax, Republican. 14,775 229 Glohe-Democrat, a radical Republican ora- 

lOth-JosephK. Edgerton, Dem... 12,353 436 ^le, was greatly displeased over Senator 

Wm. Mitchell, Republican... 11,977 Wright's speech, pronouncing it an in- 

lith— Jas. F. McDowell, Democrat. 13,142 923 tensely pro-slavery deliverance. As a sort 

J. P. C. Shanks, Republican. 12,219 of justification for its conservatism these 

By way of explanation it may be stated remarks by Senator John Sherman were 

that the Republicans in this campaign la- reproduced in an Indiana paper: 

beled their ticket "Unconditional Union .j„ ^^^ g^^^^ ^^^^^ j ^^^ (qj^j^) ^^ ^^ 

Ticket, while the Democrats placed their not like negroes. We do not disguise our 

nominees under the heading "Democratic dislike. As my friend from Indiana (Mr. 

Union Ticket." Wright) said yesterday, the whole people 

of the Northwestern States are, for rea- 
GOVERNOR WRIGHT'S APPOINTMENT ?«"« whether correct or not, opposed to 
AS TTNTTFD STATF^; csFMATnT? TO having any negroes among them ; and that 
Ab UNI 1 ED blAlES SENATOR TO principle or preiudice has been engrafted 
SUCCEED JESSE D. BRIGHT. ^n the legislation of nearly all the North- 
February 5, 1862, the United States w^^*^™ States." 
Senate voted to expel Jesse D. Bright This doubtless was the dominant senti- 
from his seat as Senator from Indiana, ment of that period. The "colored 
The ground upon which this drastic ac- brother" was for years in bad odor in the 
tion was taken was that Senator Bright Hoosier commonwealth. 


[Chapter XXVIII.l 

McDonald pitted against morton 


HE election of a Democratic 
Legislature in 1862 caused Gov. 

I I I Oliver P. Morton a good deal of 
I A i annoyance. Imperious by na- 
I " " I ture, bent on carrying into ef- 
fect whatever plans he might 
have seen fit to map out, and 
considering himself a monarch of all he 
surveyed, it would have been miracu- 
lous if trouble with a politically ad- 
verse Legislature had been averted. 
The points in controversy during those 
exciting days having been adjusted in one 
way or another, and having no particu- 
lar bearing on matters concerning or in- 
teresting the present generation, it would 
be neither edifying nor instructive to de- 
vote much space to a recital of the more 
or less exciting episodes of that period. All 
the participants therein have passed from 
life to eternity; so we can well afford to 
throw the broad mantle of charity over 
whatever may have been left behind as 
reminders of the wordy battles fought at 
Indianapolis and the State at large by 
Governor Morton and his followers on 
one side and his opponents on the other. 


For Governor — Oliver P. Morton, Indi- 

For Lieutenant - Governor — Conrad 
Baker, Evansville. 

For Secretary of State — Nelson Truss- 
ler, Connersville. 

For State Auditor — Thomas M. McCar- 
ty, Wabash. 

For State Treasurer — John I. Morrison, 

For Attorney-General — Delana E. Wil- 
liamson, Greencastle. 

For Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
tion — Geo. W. Hoss, Indianapolis. 

For Clerk of the Supreme Court — Laz- 
arus Noble, Vincennes. 

For Reporter of the Supreme Court — 
Benjamin Harrison, Indianapolis. 

For Judges of the Supreme Court — 
James S. Frazer, Warsaw; John T. Elliott, 
Henry County; Charles A. Ray, Indian- 
apolis; Robert C. Gregory, Lafayette. 

The question was raised as to whether 
Governor Morton was eligible to re-elec- 
tion under the Constitution, he having 
filled that office four years, less three days. 
It was held, but never judicially, that the 
Constitutional inhibition did not apply in 
his case, in view of the fact that he was 
elected in 1860 to the office of Lieutenant- 
Governor and became acting Governor 
upon the resignation of Governor Henry 
S. Lane three days after his induction in- 
to that office and such resignation follow- 
ing Lane's election to the United States 
Senate, to succeed Dr. Graham N. Fitch 
of Logansport. 

the democrats place joseph e. 
McDonald at the head of 

THEIR ticket. 

The Democratic State convention was 
held, as usual, at Indianapolis, but for ob- 
vious reasons not as early as had for years 
been the custom. July 12 was chosen as 
a more fitting time. State Chairman Geo. 
McQuat called the convention to order, 
and Judge David Turpie was selected as 
permanent chairman. A ringing speech 
was delivered as this man of extraordi- 
nary ability took charge of the gavel. 

Joseph E. McDonald was nominated for 
Governor and David Turpie for Lieuten- 
ant-Governor. The five State officers tri- 
umphantly elected in 1862 — Dr. James S. 
Athon, Secretary of State ; Joseph Ristine, 
Auditor; Matthew L. Brett, Treasurer; 


19 16 

Oscar B. Hord, Attorney-General, and 
Samuel L. Rugg, Superintendent of Public 
Instruction — were honored with renomi- 
nations without opposition. Ethelbert C. 
Hibben, of Rushville, was nominated for 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, and for 
Judges of the Supreme Court, Samuel E. 
Perkins of Indianapolis, Andrew David- 
son of Greensburg, James M. Hanna of 
Sullivan, and James L. Worden of Fort 
Wayne, were chosen by practical unani- 

J. J. Bingham, Marion County, Chair- 
man; S. M. Barton, Levi Sparks, S. H. 
Buskirk, James B. Foley, Eleazer Malone, 
William Henderson, W. M. Franklin, E. 
M. Weaver, P. M. Kent, Thomas Tigar, 
Dr. A. Weaver. 


At Large — Joseph E. McDonald, James 
M. Hanna, William E. Niblack, Alfred P. 

Contingents — Julius Boetticher, John 
Pettit, James W. Gaff, Samuel A. Hall. 

First District— A. T. Whittlesey, Van- 
derburgh county ; Cutler S. Dobbins, Mar- 
tin county. 

Second District — Levi Sparks, Clarke 
county; John L. Menaugh, Washington 

Third District — William McEwen, Bar- 
tholomew county; Mede W. Shields, Jack- 
son county. 

Fourth District — Marcus Levy, Dear- 
born county; John S. Campbell, Rush 

Fifth District — Lafe Develin, Wayne 
county; William C. Applegate, Fayette 

Sixth District — A. B. Conduitt, Morgan 
county ; H. H. Dodd, Marion county. 

Seventh District — John G. Davis, Vigo 
county ; Andy Humphreys, Green county. 

Eighth District— Samuel C. Wilson, 
Montgomery county ; E. F. Lucas, Warren 

Ninth District — J. A. Taylor, Cass coun- 
ty; Horace Corbin, Marshall county. 

Tenth District— David H. Colerick, Allen 
county; E. V. Long, Kosciusko county. 

Eleventh District— L. P. Milligan, Hunt- 
ington county; David Studabaker, Adams 


At Large^ — John Pettit, Lafayette; 
Simeon K. Wolfe, Corydon. 

— District Electors — 

1st— S. M. Holcombe. 

2nd — Elijah Newland. 

3rd— A. B. Carleton. 

4th— B. W. Wilson. 

5th — James Brown. 

6th — Frank Landers. 

7th — Arch Johnston. 

8th — Jonathan C. Applegate. 

9th— John G. Osborn. 
10th — Robert Lowry. 
nth— J. W. Sansbury. 

The greater part of this document is 
devoted to the unsparing denunciation of 
Governor Morton for inducing members 
of the Legislature to lend themselves to 
questionable and unlawful acts ; for estab- 
lishing a "financial bureau" without au- 
thority of law; for countenancing the 
reckless expenditure of public moneys. 
The general administration comes in for 
censure for suspending the writ of habeas 
corpus, for suppressing newspapers, for 
arresting citizens without warrant, etc. 
Other arraignments are set forth in these 
terms : 

"That the failure of the administration 
to promptly pay disabled or discharged 
soldiers, and pensions to the widows and 
children whose husbands and fathers have 
fallen in battle or died in camp or by the 
wayside, and the readiness with which the 
powers at Washington audit and pay 
shoddy contractors, officers and placemen 
of the Government, are cruel wrongs to the 
destitute and deserving, and merit the 
withering scorn of the American people. 

"That the noble and patriotic sons of In- 
diana, who, for love of country and a 
restoration of the Union as established by 
our fathers, have sacrificed the endear- 
ments of home for the hardships and perils 
of war, merit the thanks of the people of 
Indiana; that we will ever hold in grateful 
recollection the memory of those who have 


fallen in battle, and that it is the duty, and 
should be the highest pleasui-e of the 
people to make ample provision for the sup- 
port of those who have received disabil- 
ities in the service of the country, and the 
thousands of widows and tens of thou- 
sands of orphan children, whose husbands 
and fathers have sacrificed their lives in 
defense of their country and honor of the 
American flag. 

"That a faithful adherence to the Con- 
stitution of the United States, to which 
the Democracy are pledged, necessarily im- 
plies the restoration of liberty and the 
rights of the States under that Constitu- 
tion unimpaired, and will lead to an early 
and honorable peace. 

"Resolved, That we, the Democracy of 
Indiana, in State convention assembled, 
are in favor of maintaining personal and 
constitutional liberty, and we pledge our- 
selves to sustain our rights as citizens to 
the bitter end." 

Though the personal relations between 
Morton and McDonald were "reasonably 
friendly," both having been intellectual 
giants, a good deal of bitterness was in- 
jected into the joint discussions that were 
held in various parts of the State. The 
Knights of the Golden Circle came in for 
a large share of invective on the part of 
Governor Morton, who denounced that 
oath-bound organization in unmeasured 
terms as bands of traitors to their coun- 
try and as having for their purpose the 
overthrow of Governmental institutions. 
The trials for treason of William A. 
Bowles, Andrew Humphreys, Horace Hef- 
fren, Lambdin P. Milligan and Stephen 
Horsey, elaborately and sensationally re- 
ported in the Indianapolis Journal during 
the campaign, were utilized for all they 
could be made to serve. Governor Mor- 
ton was. however, somewhat hampered in 
the attempt to hold the Democracy re- 
sponsible for the acts, aims and purposes 
of these leaders of the Knights of the 
Golden Circle and Sons of Liberty by the 
heroic action of the Hon. Michael C. Kerr 
of New Albany, in going to Indianapolis 
to lay bare to Governor Morton the plots 

of these conspirators. The fact that Mr. 
Kerr was the Democratic nominee for 
Congress in the New Albany district and 
that he had step by step risen to great 
prominence in the party of his choice, 
greatly handicapped Governor Morton in 
making such use of the machinations of 
these visionaiy marplots as he had hoped 
to be able to do during the progress of 
the campaign. 

Though David Turpie was nominated 
for Lieutenant-Governor, he was induced 
to withdraw from the State ticket in order 
that he might comply with the wishes of 
the Democracy of his district to make an- 
other race for Congress against Schuyler 
Colfax. He was reluctant to do this, but 
finally yielded to the entreaties of the 
Democratic leaders of the South Bend dis- 
trict. His place on the State ticket was 
filled by the selection of that gallant war- 
rior, General Mahlon D. Manson, of Craw- 

Although it seemed for a time as if the 
Democracy might win in State and nation, 
developments toward the close of the cam- 
paign plainly foreshadowed the re-election 
of Lincoln to the Presidency and the tri- 
umph of Morton in Indiana. Only three 
of the eleven Democrats nominated for 
Congress in this State were successful at 
the polls, and of these three Daniel W. 
Voorhees was subsequently un.seated on 
contest. Niblack and Kerr had to their 
credit such decisive majorities as to ren- 
der them incontestably secure. The Legis- 
lature chosen was also strongly Repub- 
lican and very much to Morton's personal 
and political liking. Morton was credited 
with a majority of 20,883 over McDonald, 
while Conrad Baker led General Manson 
by 16,139. The vote stood: 

Oliver P. Morton 152.084 

Jospph E. McDonald 131,201 

Conrad Baker 147.795 

Mahlon P. Manson 131.(i5(; 

At the Presidential election in Novem- 
ber Abraham Lincoln polled 150,422 votes 
and General Geo. B. McClellan 130,233. 

( 209 ) 


CONGRESSIONAL RESULTS, 1864. man attempts to haul down the American 

1. W. E. Niblack, Democrat 14,721 2,111 flag, shoot him on the Spot." The utter- 

Cyrus M. Allen, Republican. . . .12,610 ances of Stephen A. Douglas were the real 

^' WilHaSw Curr' °RTubHcan''^9 564 ^''^^^ expression of Democratic sentiment. And 

3. Henry'w^HrrrinitotDem^^^^^^ ^^ese utterances could not be neutralized 
Ralph Hill, Republican 12,075 1,237 by the mutterings of any self-styled 

4. Dr. George Berry, Democrat 8,949 "knights" whose foolish performances 

John H. Farquhar, Republican. .10,015 1,066 were carried on in caves and caverns. 

5. George W. Julian, Republican. .13,426 7,145 q^j^^ ^„ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^. ^j^^ 
James Brown, Democrat 6,281 , .,,.,. ^^ , .,, ,, 

6. John Love, Democrat 10,898 ^ar to identify Democrats with these 

Ebenezer Dumont, Republican. .18,886 7,988 oath-bound treasonable organizations. The 

7. Daniel W. Voorhees, Democrat. 12,830 534 exact truth about the matter is that Dem- 
Henry D. Washburn, Repub. .. .12,296 ocrats were vexed a good deal more over 

8. James S.Harney, Democrat.... 12,349 ^^^^^ visionary organizations than were 
Godlove S. Orth, Republican. . .13,536 1,187 „ , ,. rr,, f ,, 

9. David Turpie, Democrat 15,278 Republicans. The latter utilized them for 

Schuyler Colfax, Republican. . .16,658 1,380 political purposes, while Democrats ex- 

10. Joseph K. Edgerton, Democrat. .14,037 erted themselves to point out to misguided 
JosephH.Defrees, Republican.. 14,617 580 and wrong-headed individuals ai^iliating 

11. James F. McDowell, Democrat. .13,383 +u^,.^,„uu +i,„ f^^^„ ^f +!,„,•« „^„« rrr,„ 

mi. 1.T ciMi 11 T1 ui- ir\,oo n r, . „ therewith the tolly or their course. Ihe 
Thomas N. Stillwell, Republican. 15,623 2,240 

recital of an occurrence in the southern 

POLITICAL SECRET ORDERS NOT part of the State, as narrated by William 
FAVORED BY REAL DEMOCRATS. Wesley Woollen, will make clear to the un- 
As already stated, during the Guberna- biased the folly of attempting to foist up- 
torial campaign of 1864 between Oliver P. on the Democratic party as such responsi- 
Morton and Joseph E. McDonald, a good bility for the existence of the secret or- 
deal was said about the "Sons of Liberty," ganizations under consideration: 

"Knights of the Golden Circle" and kin- <.,, „ 4. • x t -io^a u 

J J . ^. J, 1 1 J. X T , Mr. Kerr was a patriot. In 1864 he was 

dred organizations formed and fostered by ^ candidate for the Democratic nomination 

individuals who seemingly had forgotten for Congress, the late Colonel Cyrus L. 

that "Old Hickory," idolized by all Dem- Dunham being his principal competitor, 

ocrats, proclaimed an indissoluble union of The nominating convention met at Jeffer- 

indestructible States to be an inviolable ?rn''^?' '1 ^^^ ?i^ Methodist church, on 

, , » . . „ Wall street. Politics was at fever heat, 

tenet of American Democracy. ^^^ ^^e contest between Mr. Kerr and 

Andrew Jackson, Southerner that he Colonel Dunham was very close. An hour 

was, never countenanced treason or re- or so before the convention was to meet 

bellion. When South Carolina threatened ^^^ ^err called a caucus of his friends in 

„.^ ,. >. j_ .^ , XI j_ a room over the store of General Sparks, 
nullification of tariff laws that were ^here were present at the caucus several 
deemed inimical to the interests of its peo- of Mr. Kerr's friends from New Albany ; 
pie, "Old Hickory" bluntly told them that General Sparks and Mr. J. P. Applegate, 
any man or set of men who might at- from Clark county ; Hon. William H. Eng- 
tempt to nullify the laws of the land Hsh then a resident of Scott county; Gen- 
, , , , , . , ,T «Ti eral James A. Cravens, of Washington 
would be hung as high as Haman. By ^^^^^y^ ^^^ ^ f^^ other gentlemen from 
the Eternal, the Union must and shall be different parts of the district. The gentle- 
preserved !" he thundered at the would-be men thus called together supposed the pur- 
nullifiers. General John A. Dix, as Sec- Pose of the meeting was to make arrange- 
retary of the Treasury under Buchanan, "?e"ts for the management of the conyen- 
1 i. -c J j-u J.- 1 • -.^r.-, , tion. When all were seated, Mr. Kerr 
electrified the nation early m 1861 by arose, drew himself up to his full height of 
sending broadcast the dictum, "If any six feet or more, and, with suppressed ex- 


citement but with perfect self-control, said 
he must withdraw from the race for 
Congress ; that he was in possession of the 
knowledge that a conspiracy existed 
against the government of the State ; that 
the conspirators were Democrats ; that he 
felt it his duty to go to Indianapolis and 
lay the facts before Governor Morton ; 
that such a course would embitter certain 
Democrats and jeopardize his election 
should he be a candidate. Mi*. English and 
others made remarks after Mr. Kerr had 
taken his seat, the purport of which was 
that he was right in his purpose to make 
known and denounce the conspiracy, but 
wrong in determining to withdraw from 
the contest ; that only a few hot-heads had 
gone wrong; that the great body of the 
party was loyal to the Government. Mr. 
Kerr persisted in his purpose to decline, 
and it was formally announced that he was 
no longer a candidate. Afterward, how- 
ever, several gentlemen were sent to him 
by the various county delegations, who 
urged him to stand. He finally consented 
to do so, and was nominated. He came at 
once to Indianapolis to expose the con- 
spiracy, and what he did can be best told 
by giving the testimony of one of the wit- 
nesses in the trials of Bowles, Milligan and 
others. Says this witness: 

As I walked down Washington street I saw a 
gentleman coming- up rapidly, and I stopped him. 
"Hello, Kerr; what has brought you here?" said I. 
He seemed very much excited. "Do you know 
anything?" he said; and I said, "Do you know 
anything?" "Yes," he replied. "What is it?" 
said I. He then said, "The devil's to pay in our 
section of the State; the people of Washington, 

Harri.son and Floyd counties and that neighbor- 
hood have got the idea that a revolution was im- 
pending; the farmers were frightened and were 
selling their hay in the fields and their wheat in 
the stacks, and all the property that could be was 
being converted into greenbacks." 

Mr. Kerr was so deeply. impressed with 
the danger of the situation that he and the 
witness from whom I have quoted went tc 
the residence of Hon. Jo.seph E. McDonald 
in the night, awakened that gentleman and 
told him what they knew about the con- 
spiracy. It was agreed that a meeting of 
prominent Democrats should be called next 
morning at Mr. McDonald's office to con- 
sider the situation. The meeting was held, 
and during its sitting Mr. Kerr made a 
speech. I again quote from this witness : 

He spoke about this excitement, this revolution- 
ary scheme, and said that he came up on purpose 
to put a stop to the thing. I think he said it was 
our duty to stop it, and if it could not be stopped 
in any other way it was our duty to inform the 

"Mr. Kerr was su.stained in his position 
by Mr. McDonald and other prominent 
Democrats, but there is no gainsaying the 
fact that he was the leading man of his 
party in the effort to destroy the con- 
spiracy, which, had it been inaugurated, 
would have deluged Indiana with blood. 

"The action of Mr. Kerr in proposing to 
decline the race for Congress in his distrid 
was in keeping with his character. Young, 
and ambitious for political preferment, he 
was yet willing to stand aside for others 
when he believed duty called him to make 
the sacrifice." 

[Chapter XXIX.] 



gressed it was deemed wise to make John- 
son military governor of Tennessee, in 
which capacity he could serve the Union 
cause far more effectively than in the Sen- 
ate at Washington. It was Lincoln's opin- 
ion that the spirit of patriotism displayed 
by War Democrats throughout the coun- 
try, but especially in the South, ought to be 
given deserved and substantial recogni- 
tion. There was much in Andrew John- 
son's career that commended itself to Lin- 
coln's favor. Like himself, Johnson was of 
humble origin. Dependent upon his own 
resources in his boyhood days, no educa- 
tional advantages were within his reach. 
Instead of being made the beneficiary of 
schooling he served an apprenticeship in 
a tailor shop. A charming Tennessee 
girl attracted his attention and challenged 
his admiration. In course of time this 
ambitious young man and this buoyant 
maiden were united in marriage. She 
chanced to be an apt teacher, he an apt 
pupil. She taught him to read and write. 
With the acquisition of this educational 
facility came an intense longing for read- 
ing books and acquiring knowledge. 
Young Johnson made rapid progress. A 
fine specimen of manhood, he soon ingrati- 
ated himself in popular favor, was elected 
to various oflices, became Governor of his 
State, and toward the expiration of his 
term was chosen United States Senator. 
In the latter capacity he made an en- 
viable record in championing the home- 
stead policy for bona fide settlers in the 
territories and kindred measures in the 
interest of struggling humanity. To An- 
drew Johnson belongs the credit of having 
first urged in Congress the election of 

Fi TTrnMMmTn nji i HAT OHver p. Morton was a 
' I ' I man of extraordinary intellect- 
I i ual power will not be seriously 
J_ I questioned by any one at all 
' familiar with his career as po- 
litical leader. Governor or 
United States Senator. As a 
platform speaker he was neither ornate 
nor eloquent. He disdained indulgence in 
flowery rhetoric. His preference ran de- 
cidedly to "sledge-hammer" argument. 
With all the vigor of his masterful mind 
he marshaled his facts and drove his 
points into the understanding of his hear- 
ers. It may be assumed that he was sub- 
ject to mental anguish if he suspected that 
he did not make himself clearly under- 
stood or failed to carry conviction to his 
audience. Intense earnestness marked all 
of his more important utterances on ques- 
tions of great moment. 

The reconstruction of the Southern 
States lately in rebellion engaged popular 
attention to an eminent degree. It be- 
came the "paramount issue," soon follow- 
ing the suppression of the rebellion. The 
assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John 
Wilkes Booth imposed the duties and re- 
sponsibilities of the presidential office on 
Andrew Johnson, whom Lincoln himself 
desired as his running mate in the cam- 
paign of 1864. Johnson was at the break- 
ing out of the rebellion a United States 
Senator from Tennessee, elected by a 
Democratic legislature. He had always 
been a Democrat. His place of residence 
was in East Tennessee, where public sen- 
timent was intensely loyal to the Union. 
Secession was hated and rebellion stoutly 
condemned and resisted. As the war pro- 




United States Senators by direct vote of 
the people. He was an intensely earnest, 
thoroughly honest and ruggedly patriotic 
Tennesseean and American. 

Mr. Lincoln was neither personally nor 
politically averse to Vice-President Han- 
nibal Hamlin, his running mate in 1860, 
but, as already stated, he believed that his 
associate on the 1864 ticket ought to be a 
war Democrat. And he preferred John- 
son to all others because he had formed 
the opinion that the nomination of a 
Southerner would have the effect of pre- 
venting the recognition of the Southern 
Confederacy by England and France — a 
danger then quite imminent. 

For some time after Johnson's acces- 
sion to the Presidency the belief was quite 
common that Lincoln's developed program 
for the reconstruction of the States lately 
in rebellion would be carried out without 
encountering serious opposition. The fear 
that found most expression was that 
Johnson, by reason of personal animosity 
to Southern leaders who had grossly ma- 
ligned and persecuted him before, during 
and after the rebellion, would be far more 
strenuous in imposing terms of punish- 
ment than Lincoln would have been had 
he lived. There was some ground for this 
belief, but circumstances shaped affairs 
differently. There was in the Republican 
camp an element that did not take kindly 
to Lincoln's conservative and conciliatory 
policy. The leader of this faction was 
Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, a man 
of marked ability and of intense hating 
predilection. Amazingly unscrupulous, he 
hesitated at nothing after determining to 
accomplish a purpose. He came near 
plunging Pennsylvania into war during 
the thirties when he had autocratically 
resolved to retain Joseph Ritner in the 
gubernatorial chair after being defeated 
at the polls. The Stevens conspiracy was 
prevented by the appearance at the State 
Capitol in Harrisburg of a company of 
men from Philadelphia whose sternness 

of purpose admitted of no doubt as to 
what they would do to Thaddeus if he 
persisted in counting in the man who had 
been voted out at the election in October. 

It may be stated that Stevens was very 
much opposed to the nomination of An- 
drew Johnson to the vice-presidency in 
1864. To the last he persisted in insisting 
on the renomination of Hannibal Hamlin. 
He couldn't see either sense or propriety 
in taking up for the second highest office 
a man whose habitation was in a "d — d 
rebel province." 

Stevens M'as a bachelor, club-footed, 
hard-faced, vindictive. When a Republi- 
can contested the seat of a Democrat in 
Congress Stevens did not pay the slightest 
attention to the evidence adduced in the 
case. He simply inquired of some one in 
interest, "What is the name of our ras- 
cal?" and at once voted to seat him in 
place of the man really elected. He was 
passionately fond of a game of poker, de- 
nied the existence of a God, and hooted 
at the idea of man being the creation 
of what was called "the Almighty." On 
the latter point he was wont to say that 
an engine could be taken apart; if any 
of the machinery within was worn out 
it could be replaced and the engine again 
made serviceable. Not so with man. 
"When his interior becomes impaired," 
Stevens used to say, "there is no repair- 
ing or replacing of worn-out parts. He 
is done for; he dies and is buried." 

Stevens' plan of reconstruction was 
radically different from that of Lincoln. 
Punishment, not restoration, was his pro- 
gram. To accomplish his purpose, he 
availed himself of every opportunity to 
discredit the Johnson administration and 
cast odium upon it. With ghoulish glee 
grossly exaggerated and perverted stories 
about Johnson having been drunk when 
inaugurated as Vice-President were re- 
vamped. Conservative, conscientious Re- 
publicans were dismayed over these mani- 
festations of bitterness and malignancy. 


1 8 1 G - 1 9 1 6 

Governor Morton, himself originally a 
Democrat and still a believer in the firmly 
established doctrine of "an indissoluble 
Union of indestructible States," felt im- 
pelled to come to the support of President 
Johnson. He chose the principal town of 
the county (Wayne) in which he grew 
to manhood and prominence — the Quaker 
city of Richmond — as the place for de- 
livering a carefully prepared speech in de- 
fense of Pi-esident Johnson's reconstruc- 
tion policy and in opposition to the mon- 
strous proposition to make voters of the 
lately emancipated slaves of the South. 
So able was this speech in its presentation, 
so conclusive in argument, so clear and 
convincing, that Governor Morton never 
attempted to explain it away after he had 
changed front and championed the very 
opposite of what he contended for at 
Richmond on September 29, 1865. 

The only copy of this speech now known 
to be in existence is on file in the State 
Library at Indianapolis. For obvious rea- 
sons scant reference is made to it in the 
biographies of Oliver P. Morton, and yet 
it may fairly be said to have been the 
ablest and most statesman-like speech 
ever made by this intellectual giant. What 
a pity that he did not join such Repub- 
lican Senators as James R. Doolittle of 
Wisconsin, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, 
Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, James 
Dixon of Connecticut, Daniel S. Norton 
of Minnesota, and others of that type in 
upholding the hands of Andrew Johnson 
in carrying out the humane program 
mapped out by Lincoln for the establish- 
ment of constitutional government in the 
South. Had he stood by the doctrines 
laid down in his Richmond speech, had he 
adhered firmly to the Lincoln- Johnson 
plan of unification and pacification, there 
is reason to believe that conservatism 
would have triumphed and radicalism 
would not have been permitted to do its 
demoralizing and destructive work. The 
pages of American history might thus 
have been kept clear and clean of recitals 

of the outrageously corrupt and disgrace- 
ful performances that for years charac- 
terized carpet-bag rule in Southern States. 
The stupendous folly of forcing into the 
Constitution of the United States the fif- 
teenth amendment, conferring upon vast 
hordes of densely ignorant beings the 
right of suffrage, might not now fill with 
apprehension the minds of discerning stu- 
dents of government. The thought that 
in a number of States in the South public 
safety imperatively demands organized 
denial of the unrestricted exercise of this 
constitutional grant awakens suspicion 
that sanity must have been dangerously 
clouded and obscured when that vicious 
assault upon the purity and beneficence 
of the ballot was first conceived and finally 
perpetrated. As long as the present status 
of pacific submission is maintained, and 
sanctioned by overwhelming public senti- 
ment North and South, the utter perni- 
ciousness of this license for the pollution 
of the ballot may not be revealed in all 
its hideousness ; but when the situation 
changes and the subdued mass becomes 
aware of its latent power, a conflict of 
races may prove as irrepressible as was 
the conflict between slavery and freedom 
in the Fifties and early Sixties. 

MOND, IND., SEPT. 29, 1865, ON RE- 

"So that Mr. Johnson has restricted 
from taking the oath eight classes per- 
mitted by Mr. Lincoln, and so far his plan 
is more stringent than Mr. Lincoln's was. 
Mr. Lincoln, in his plan of reconstruction, 
declared all persons should have the right 
to vote for the delegates to the conventions 
which might be called in the States to form 
State constitutions, who had taken the 
oath prescribed by him, and who were law- 
ful voters according to the laws of the 
State in which they resided before the pas- 
sage of the ordinance of secession. Mr. 
Johnson has made precisely the same con- 
dition. Mr. Lincoln then provided for the 
appointment of Provisional Governors, giv- 
ing to them the power of calling State con- 


19 1 

ventions, with a view of forming State 
constitutions, for the purpose of being re- 
ceived back into full practical relations 
with the Government. Mr. Lincoln did the 
same. Each required that the constitu- 
tions thus formed should be Republican in 
form. Mr. Lincoln put forth no require- 
ment of condition that was not equally 
contained in Mr. Johnson's proclamation. 
Their plans of amnesty and reconstruction 
cannot be distinguished from each other, 
except in the particulars I have already 
mentioned, that Mr. Johnson restricts cer- 
tain persons from taking the oath, unless 
they first have a special pardon from him, 
whom Mr. Lincoln permitted to come for- 
ward and take the oath without it ; and in 
the further diff'erence before mentioned, 
that Mr. Lincoln required one-tenth of the 
people of the State to show a willingness 
to take the oath, while Mr. Johnson has 
said nothing whatever about that. This 
was Mr. Lincoln's favorite policy. It was 
presented by him to Congress on the 8th of 
January, 1863, accompanied by a message. 
In the course of the next year, 1864, on 
several occasions, Mr. Lincoln distinctly 
presented, again and again, this policy of 
amnesty and reconstruction to the people 
of the South. It was his settled and 
favorite policy at the time he was re- 
nominated for election by the Union con- 
vention at Baltimore last summer, and in 
that convention the party sustained him 
and strongly endorsed his whole policy, of 
which this was a prominent part. Mr. 
Lincoln was triumphantly and overwhelm- 
ingly elected upon that policy, and soon 
after his election, in December, 1864, in his 
last annual message to Congress, he again 
brings forward this same policy of his and 
presents it to the Nation. And again, on 
the 12th of April, only two days before his 
death, he referred to and presented this 
policy of amnesty and reconstruction. That 
speech may be called his last speech, his 
dying words to the people, and I desire to 
refer to it. You remember the occasion. 
It was after Richmond had been evacuated. 
It was the day after they had received the 
news of Lee's surrender. Washington 
city was illuminated. A large crowd came 
in front of the White House and Mr. Lin- 
coln spoke to them from one of the win- 
dows. He referred to the organization of 
Louisiana under his plan of amnesty and 
reconstruction, and, in speaking of it, he 
gave the history of his policy. He said: 

In my annual message of December, 1863, and 
accompanying the proclamation, I presented a 
plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which 
1 promised, if adopted by any State, would be 
acceptable, and sustained by the Executive Gov- 
ernment of the nation. I distinctly stated that 
this was a plan which might possibly be accept- 
able, and also distinctly protested that the Exec- 
utive claimed no right to say when or whether 
members should be admitted to seats in Congress 
from such States. 

"I want to make one remark right here. 
It is said that, under Mr. Johnson's policy 
of reconstruction, the men who originated 
and carried on the rebellion can be returned 
to seats in Congress as Senators and Rep- 
resentatives. The gentlemen who talk that 
way forget that on the 2nd of July, 1862, 
Congress passed an act, which has never 
been repealed, and is now in full force and 
effect, prohibiting any person from holding 
any Federal office, high or low, great or 
small, who has directly or indirectly been 
concerned in this rebellion, and there is no 
danger of the rebel leaders going into Con- 
gress unless the members of that body 
shall prove recreant to their trust and fail 
to enforce a law now unrepealed upon the 
statute books. Mr. Lincoln referred to the 
act of Congress, and said distinctly that he 
claimed no power to influence the admis- 
sion of members of Congress, and no power 
to bring forward a man who had been dis- 
franchised and rendered ineligible by an 
act of Congress. Mr. Johnson has never 
for a moment claimed that he could do such 
a thing. The act of Congress was binding 
upon Mr. Lincoln, and it is no less binding 
upon Mr. Johnson, and it has not been pro- 
posed by the plan of either to interfere 
with the operation of a statute, or bring 
any man into Congress or into the posses- 
sion of any Federal office who has been 
made ineligible by law. 'This plan,' says 
Mr. Lincoln, speaking of his plan of re- 
construction — 'This plan was, in advance, 
submitted to the Cabinet, and approved by 
every member of it. One of them sug- 
gested that I should then apply the Eman- 
cipation Proclamation thereto, except in 
parts of Virginia and Louisiana, and that 
I should drop the suggestion about appren- 
ticeship, for freed people, and that I should 
omit the protest against my own power in 
regard to admission of members of Con- 
gress, but even then he approved every 
part and parcel of the plan, which has since 
been employed or touched by the action of 

"Here Mr. Lincoln, just before his death, 




gives the history of his plan of reconstruc- 
tion. He says it was submitted to every 
member of his Cabinet — and who were the 
members of his Cabinet at that time? 
Chief Justice Chase, Edwin M. Stanton and 
Wm. H. Seward were among them, and 
surely the indorsement of such men as 
these must give additional weight to any 
measure. Mr. Lincoln goes on: 

The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring 
emancipation for the whole State, practically 
applies the proclamation to that part previously 
exempted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for 
freed people, and is silent, as it could not well be 
otherwise, about the admission of members to Con- 
gress. As it applied to Louisiana, every member 
of Congress fully approved the plan of the mes- 
sage. I received many commendations of the 
plan, written and verbal, and not a single objec- 
tion from any professed emancipationist, until 
after news was received at Washington that the 
people of Louisiana had begun to move in accord- 
ance with it, from about July, 1864. 

"In conclusion, upon this subject he used 
the following language: 

Such has been my only agency in the Louisiana 
movement. My promise is made, as I have previ- 
ously stated, but as bad promises are better 
broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad 
promise, and break it whenever I shall be con- 
vinced that keeping it is adverse to the public in- 
terest. But I have not yet been so convinced. 

"Now, we find Mr. Lincoln, just before 
his death, referring in warm and strong 
terms to his policy of amnesty and recon- 
struction, and giving it his endorsement, 
giving to the world that which had never 
been given before — the history of that plan 
and policy, stating that it had been pre- 
sented and endorsed by every member of 
that able and distinguished Cabinet of 
1863. Mr. Lincoln may be said to have 
died holding out to the Nation his policy 
of amnesty and reconstruction. It was 
held out by him at the very time the rebels 
laid down their arms. 

"Mr. Lincoln died by the hand of an as- 
sassin, and Mr. Johnson came into power. 
He took Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet as he had 
left it, and he took Mr. Lincoln's policy of 
amnesty and reconstruction as he had left 
it, and as he had presented it to the world 
only two days before his death. Mr. John- 
son has honestly and faithfully attempted 
to administer that policy, which had been 
bequeathed by that man around whose 
grave a whole world has gathered as 

"I refer to these facts for the purpose 
of showing that Mr. Johnson's policy is 

not a new one, but that he is simply carry- 
ing out the policy left to him by his la- 
mented predecessor — a policy that had 
been endorsed by the whole nation in the 
re-election of Mr. Lincoln, and had been 
promulgated to the whole world nearly one 
year before the time of his last election. 

"I want to remark one thing more upon 
that subject. I want to refer to the action 
of Congress in reference to the question 
of reconstruction. You will remember 
that some time in the month of April, Hen- 
ry Winter Davis, a very distinguished Con- 
gressman from Maryland, introduced a bill 
called the Winter Davis Bill. It provided 
a plan for the reconstruction of the rebel 
States, to bring them back into practical 
relations with the Government. It dif- 
fered from the plan of Mr. Lincoln's in 
some important respects, one of which 
was that, in electing delegates to the State 
convention that was to reorganize the 
State government, he allowed no man to 
vote who had been concerned in the rebel- 
lion in any way. I want to call your at- 
tention very briefly to that bill and show 
you how far Congress was committed by 
its own direct action to the main points in 
Mr. Johnson's policy of reconstruction. 
This bill, a copy of which I have here, pro- 
vided for the appointment of Provisional 
Governors in these States, just as Mr. Lin- 
coln's plan had done and Mr. Johnson's 
now does. It provided that these Provi- 
sional Governors might call State conven- 
tions for the purpose of forming State 
con.stitutions, and in this particular, also, 
it conformed to Mr. Lincoln's plan. It 
then went on to define the question of the 
right of suff'rage for delegates to these con- 
ventions. It provided that the delegates 
shall be elected by the loyal white male 
citizens of the United States of the age of 
twentv-one years, and residents at the 
time in the county, parish or district in 
which they shall offer to vote. 

"I call your attention to the fact that 
Congress itself, only a little over a year 
ago, when it assumed to take the whole 
question of reconstruction out of the hands 
of the President, expressly excluded the 
negro from the right of suffrage in voting 
for the men who were to frame the new 
constitutions for the rebel States. Not 
only that, but it went on to state what the 
constitutions should contain, and provided 
that if the constitutions to be formed by 
these conventions should conform to the 



provisions of this bill, then those States 
should be entitled to come back at once. 
What were these conditions? They only 
required that the constitution should con- 
tain three things: first, it shall contain a 
provision to the effect that no person who 
has held or exercised any office, civil or 
military, except offices merely ministerial, 
and military offices below the grade of 
colonel, State or Confederate, under the 
usurping power, shall vote for, or be a 
member of, the Legislature, or Governor. 
In other words, the bill required that these 
conventions should exclude from the right 
of suffrage in the South all persons who 
had been in the rebel army above the rank 
of colonel, thereby conceding very plainly 
that they might give the right of suff'rage 
to all persons below that rank. The bill 
provides, secondly, that involuntary servi- 
tude must be forever prohibited and the 
freedom of all persons guaranteed in such 
States; and that no debt or obligation 
created by or under the sanction of the 
usurping power shall be recognized or paid 
by the State. 

"These were all the conditions that were 
imposed upon the constitutions to be 
framed under the Henry Winter Davis 
bill. It simply required, if you please, that 
the constitution of South Carolina should 
not give the right of suff'rage to any man 
who had held office in the rebel army above 
the rank of colonel; and that involuntary 
servitude should be abolished, and that 
they should not assume any Confederate 
debt; but it did not require that any pro- 
vision be made to confer the right of suf- 
frage upon the negro at any time. It did 
not require that they should make provi- 
sion for the education of the negro, or for 
giving him the right of testifying in courts 
of justice, or for preserving, in any partic- 
ular way, what may be called his civil 
rights. Mr. Lincoln, as you remember, re- 
fused to sign that bill. He put it in his 
pocket. Though it had received a majority 
in both Houses, being passed in the House 
by a vote of 74 to 66, and by a much larger 
vote in the Senate, it failed to become a 
law. Some of you may, perhaps, remem- 
ber the angry manifesto put forth in con- 
sequence of Mr. Lincoln's course in that 
matter by Mr. Davis and Mr. Wade, and 
you will not forget that the result was to 
create strife and division in the ranks of 
the Union party. 

"If Mr. Lincoln had not refused to sign 

that bill there would today be an act of 
Congress on the statute books absolutely 
prohibiting negroes frorh any participa- 
tion in the work of reorganization and 
pledging the Government in advance to ac- 
cept of the constitutions that might be 
formed under the bill, although they made 
no provision for the negro beyond the fact 
of his personal liberty. If that bill had 
become a law, and the rebel States had 
formed their constitutions under it, sim- 
ply guaranteeing the negro his personal 
liberty, but making no provision for suf- 
frage or any other rights, they could pre- 
sent their members of Congress and you 
could not keep them out, except by tram- 
pling on one of the acts of Congress. But 
Mr. Lincoln refused to sign it, giving his 
reason for doing so, and it is only another 
act for which we ought to thank him. So 
that while Mr. Lincoln did not require 
negro suffrage in his plan of reconstruc- 
tion, we here have a solemn act of Con- 
gress absolutely prohibiting the negro 
from any participation in the reconstruc- 
tion of the Southern States. Now, how is 
it with Mr. Johnson? Mr. Lincoln re- 
quired that they should come back to the 
Union with constitutions free from slav- 
ery. Mr. Johnson has said so time and 
again — he said it to the South Carolina 
delegation. He said to the Freedmen's 
delegation : 'It is one condition of the re- 
admission of these States that slavery 
shall be forever extinguished, and that the 
rights of the freedmen shall be preserved 
and respected.' I am very glad to see that 
many of the Southern States are making 
commendable progress in this matter of 
the abolition of slavery. I see that the 
convention in Alabama has adopted by 83 
to . 3 a provision forever abolishing and 
prohibiting slavery in that State — and not 
only so, but requiring the Legislature to 
make provision for the protection of the 
freedmen in the enjoyment of their civil 
rights. (Applause.) 

"I come now to speak more properly on 
the STibject of negro suffrage. The Consti- 
tution of the LTnited States has referred 
the question of suffrage to the several 
States. This may have been right, or it 
may have been wrong. I merely speak of 
the subject as it stands, and say that the 
question of suffrage is referred by the 
Constitution to the several States. It first 
provides that such persons as had a right 
to vote by the laws of the State for a mem- 




ber of the most numerous branch of the 
State Legislature should have a right to 
vote for members of Congress. It then, 
in another provision, declares that the 
States may, in any manner they may see 
proper, appoint or elect their presidential 
electors, so that the whole question of suf- 
frage has, by the Constitution, from the 
beginning been referred to the several 
States. Now, it has been proposed by 
some to avoid the operation of this provi- 
sion by excluding members of Congress 
from the Southern States until such time 
as they shall incorporate negro suffrage in 
their State constitutions — to say to them, 
'We will keep you out of your seats until 
such time as the State from which you 
come shall amend its constitution so as to 
provide for negro suffrage.' 

"This is one way in which to avoid the 
force of the constitutional provisions. 
There is another plan, and that is the the- 
ory which regards these States as being 
out of the Union and holding them as con- 
quered provinces, subject to the jurisdic- 
tion of Congress, like unorganized terri- 
tory, saying that Congress has the power 
to provide for calling conventions in these 
States, just as in the territory of Dakota, 
and may prescribe the right of suffrage 
and determine who shall vote in electing 
delegates To these conventions, just as in 
the territory of Dakota; that it may then 
determine whether it will accept the con- 
stitution offered, as might be determined 
in the case of any other territory. 

"I will not stop to argue this question 
at length, but will say this, that from the 
beginning of the war up to the present 
time every message of the President, every 
proclamation, every State paper and every 
act of Congress has proceeded upon the 
hypothesis that no State could secede from 
the Union ; that once in the Union, always 
in the Union. Mr. Lincoln in every proc- 
lamation went on the principle that this 
war was an insurrection — a rebellion 
against the Constitution and the laws of 
the United States; not a rebellion of 
States, but a rebellion of the individuals, 
the people of the several Southern States, 
and every man who went into it was per- 
sonally and individually responsible for 
his acts and could not shield himself under 
the action or authority of his State. He 
went on the principle that every ordinance 
of secession, every act of the legislatures 
of the rebel States in that direction was a 

nullity, uncon.stitutional and void, having 
no legal force or effect whatever, and that 
as these States were, according to law, in 
the Union, their standing could not be af- 
fected by the action of the people — that 
the people of these States were personally 
responsible for their conduct, just as a 
man is responsible who violates the statute 
in regard to the commission of murder, 
and to be treated as criminals, just as the 
authorities thought proper — that the peo- 
ple of a State can forfeit their rights, but 
so far as their action is concerned, in a 
legal pomt of view, they had no power to 
affect the condition of the State in the 
Union. Every proclamation and every 
act ot Congress have proceeded upon this 
hypothesis. Mr. Buchanan started out 
with the proposition that this was a rebel- 
lion of States. He said we could not co- 
erce a State. Our reply was, we have 
nothing whatever to do with States, we 
will coerce the people of the States, hold- 
ing every man responsible for his conduct. 

"This was our answer to Mr. Buchanan. 
Upon this hypothesis we have just put 
down the rebellion. But it is now pro- 
posed by some that we shall practically 
admit that the Southern States did secede 
— that they did go out of the Union — that 
the work of secession was perfect, was ac- 
complished — that the States are out of the 
Union — that a government de facto was 
established, and that we now hold these 
States as conquered provinces, just as we 
should hold Canada if we were to invade 
it and take possession of it. As a conse- 
quence of this doctrine, Jeff Davis can not 
be tried for treason because he is not a 
traitor — not a violator of the law, but the 
head of a government de facto — the ruler 
of a conquered province, and we have no 
more power to try him for treason than 
we would to try the Governor of Canada 
for such an offense in case he should fall 
mto our hands during a hostile invasion 
of his territory. That is what this doc- 
trine leads to. It leads to a thousand 
other evils and pernicious things never 
contemplated in the nature of our Govern- 

"Another consequence which would flow 
from the admission of that doctrine (and 
I propose to argue that at some other 
time) would be that we would be called 
upon to pay the rebel debt. If we admit 
that these States were out of the Union 


19 1 

for one moment, and we were to be re- 
garded in the light of belligerents, it would 
be insisted upon at once that when we 
took them back we took them with their 
debts, as we would take any other con- 
quered province or State. I do not pro- 
pose to argue that question any further 
at this time. 

"The question of negro suffrage is one 
which threatens to divide us to some ex- 
tent, and is surrounded with many prac- 
tical difficulties. I reject in advance all 
schemes of colonization, as they are im- 
practicable. We have no right to insist 
upon colonizing the negro. He is an 
American, born in this country, and he 
has no other countiy. When he desires to 
emigrate he has a perfect right to do so, 
but his emigration must depend upon his 
own volition. I believe that the time will 
come when every man in the country, 
white and black, will have the right of suf- 
frage, and that suffrage should not depend 
upon color — that there is nothing in that 
which should make a distinction. I be- 
lieve that in the process of years every 
man, whatever his color, whether in In- 
diana or in South Carolina, will come to 
enjoy political rights. (Applause.) 

"The right to vote carries with it the 
right to hold office. You cannot say that 
the negro has a natural right to vote, but 
that he must vote only for white men for 
office. The right to vote carries with it 
the right to be voted for. When that right 
is conferred you can make no discrimina- 
tion, no distinction against the right to 
hold office, and the right to vote in a State 
carries with it the right to vote for Presi- 
dent and members of Congress, and for all 
Federal officers. The right of suffrage be- 
ing conferred in South Carolina, for State 
purposes, under our Constitution, as I 
have pointed out before, carries with it 
the right to vote for President and Vice- 
President and members of Congress. 

"In regard to the question of admitting 
the freedmen of the Southern States to 
vote, while I admit the equal rights of all 
men, and that in time all men will have 
the right to vote without distinction of 
color or race, I yet believe that in the case 
of four millions of slaves just freed from 
bondage there should be a period of pro- 
bation and preparation before they are 
brought to the exercise of political power. 
Let us consider for one moment the con- 
dition of these people in the Southern 

States. You cannot judge of the general 
condition of the freedmen and negroes 
upon the plantation by what we hear of 
the schools established at Hilton Head, 
Norfolk and other places where a few en- 
thusiastic and philanthropic teachers are 
instructing the negroes. I have no doubt 
many of them are making rapid progress, 
but these are only as one in many thou- 
sands. Ninety-nine out of every hundred 
of the negroes in the South live on the 
plantations, and you cannot judge of the 
condition of the great mass by those who 
live in the towns. You must consider the 
condition of the whole mass. What is that 
condition? Perhaps not one in five hun- 
dred — I may say one in a thousand — can 
read, and perhaps not one in five hundred 
is worth five dollars in property of any 
kind. They have no property, personal or 
real. They have just come from bondage 
and all they have is their ov/n bodies. 

"Their homes are on the plantations of 
these men, and they must depend for sub- 
sistence on the employment they receive 
from them. Look at their condition. As 
I said before, only one in five hundred can 
read — many of them until within the last 
few months were never ofi:" the plantation ; 
most of them never out of the county in 
which they live and were born, except as 
they were driven by the slave drivers. 
Can you conceive that a body of men, 
white or black, who have been in this con- 
dition, and their ancestors before them, 
are qualified to be immediately lifted from 
their present state into the full exercise 
of political power, not only to govern 
themselves and their neighbors, but to 
take part in the government of the United 
States? Can they be regarded as intelli- 
gent and independent voters? The mere 
statement of the fact furnishes the answer 
to the question. To say that such men — 
and it is no fault of theirs; it is simply 
their misfortune and the crime of the na- 
tion — to say that such men, just emerging 
from this slavery, are qualified for the 
exercise of political power, is to make the 
strongest pro-slavery argument I ever 
heard. It is to pay the highest compli- 
ment to the institution of slavery. 

"What has been our practice for many 
years? We have invariably described 
slavery as degrading to both the body and 
soul. We have described it as bringing 
human beings down to the level of the 
beasts of the field. We have described it 

( 220) 


1 8 1 

19 16 

as a crime, depriving the slaves of intel- 
lectual and moral culture and of all gifts 
which God has made the most precious. 
If we shall now turn around and say that 
this institution has been a blessing to the 
negro instead of a curse ; that it has quali- 
fied him for the right of suffrage and the 
exercise of political power, we shall stul- 
tify ourselves and give the lie to those dec- 
larations upon which we have obtained 
political power. 

"Let me inquii-e for a single moment, in 
what condition is Indiana to urge negro 
suffrage in South Carolina, or in any other 
State? Let us consider the position we 
occupy. We have, perhaps, twenty-five 
thousand colored people in this State. 
Most of them can read and write; many 
of them are very intelligent and excellent 
citizens, well-to-do in the world, well qual- 
ified to exercise the right of suffrage and 
political power. But how stands the mat- 
ter? We not only exclude them from vot- 
ing, we exclude them from testifying in 
the courts of justice. We exclude them 
from our public schools and make it un- 
lawful and a crime for them to come into 
the State of Indiana at any time subse- 
quent to 18-50. No negro who has come 
into our State since 1850 can make a valid 
contract ; he cannot acquire title to a piece 
of land because the law makes the deed 
void, and every man who gives him em- 
ployment is liable to prosecution and fine. 
I sent out the Twenty-eighth Indiana col- 
ored regiment, recruited with great diffi- 
culty and at some expense. It has been 
in the field two years. It has fought well 
on many occasions and won the high opin- 
ion of officers who have seen it. We got 
credit on our State quota for every man 
who went out. Yet, according to the Con- 
stitution and laws of Indiana more than 
one-half of the men in that regiment have 
no right to come back again, and if they 
do come back they are subject to prosecu- 
tion and fine ; and any man who receives 
them or employs them is also liable to pun- 
ishment. Now, can Indiana, in this con- 
dition — with twenty-five thousand colored 
men in her borders, to whom she denies 
suffrage and political power, and almost 
all civil rights, with what face, I say, can 
Indiana go to Congress and insist upon 
giving the right of suffrage to the negroes 
in the Southern States ? If her Congress- 
men ask to no this they will naturally be 
asked in turn, 'What have you done with 

ihese people in your own State? You have 
nad them for many years. You have long 
had an opportunity to make this issue as 
to whether they ought to have these 
rights. Their mental and moral condition 
is much superior to that of the great mass 
of the freedmen in the Southern States.' 

"What have you done? You have done 
nothing. I ask you, what would be the 
moral strength of any politician present- 
ing these questions in Congress? I ask how 
any member of Congress from Indiana, 
who has not made the issue at home, can 
present himself and urge the right of Con- 
gress to enfranchise the negroes in the 
Southern States? It may be said that 
there are only a few of them in Indiana, 
and it is noc important. But if the few 
who are here have a right, moral or nat- 
ural, to the franchise, when you refuse it 
to the few you refuse it to all. When you 
refuse it to 25,000 you violate sound prin- 
ciples just as much as if you refuse it to 
five millions. I tell you these Northern 
States can never command any moral 
force on that subject until they shall first 
be just to the negroes at home. 
* * * 

"If you enfranchise all the negroes in 
these States you will have at least twenty 
negro votes to one white vote, and in the 
work of reconstructing the States of 
South Carolina, Alabama and Florida you 
would have a larger proportion — perhaps 
thirty colored votes to one white vote. 
Now, I ask you, what is to be the eflfect of 
that? The first effect would be to erect 
colored State governments. Under such a 
condition of things the negro would no 
more vote for a white man than you would 
vote for a black man. They would no 
more elect a white man than they would 
elect a black man. Human nature is the 
same, whether in a white or colored skin. 
There would be nothing that would confer 
more pleasure upon a man of that race, 
of course, than the elevation to political 
power of a man of his own race and color. 
Having secured power, they would retort 
upon us that which we have so steadily 
practiced upon them. If you give them 
the votes they will elect men of their own 
color. And we would have no right to 
blame them. We would think rather bad- 
ly of them if they did not. I would ask 
you if the negroes of Hayti, or any other 
place where they are in the majority, have 
ever elected a white man to oflSce? Under 



Mr. Sumner's plan you will give them an 
overwhelming majority in every one of 
these States, and you will give them the 
political power of the South. That they 
will exercise that power by electing men 
of their own color is absolutely certain. 
Believing that human nature is the same 
under different complexions, that the ne- 
groes are not differently constituted from 
ourselves, and that they have like passions 
with us, we cannot doubt how this power 
will be exercised. 

"Some -will say that if they can find 
colored men qualified, all right. There 
are enough colored men of education in 
the North to go South and fill every office 
there, and I have no doubt they stand 
ready to do it. Here we deny them almost 
every right, except that of personal lib- 
erty, and it is so in Illinois and some of 
the other Northern States; and when you 
present to them the prospect of holding 
the highest offices in the gift of the people 
of the Southern States, rest assured they 
will embrace it. They will have colored 
Governors, and colored members of Con- 
gress, and Senators and Judges of the Su- 
preme Court, etc. Very well; and sup- 
pose they do send colored Senators and 
Representatives to Congress? I have no 
doubt you will find men in the North will- 
ing to sit beside them, and will not think 
themselves degraded by doing so. I have 
nothing to say to this. I am simply dis- 
cussing the political effect of it. In every 
State where there is a colored State gov- 
ernment, a negro for Governor and a ne- 
gro for Supreme Judge, white emigration 
will cease. There will be no more white 
emigration to any such State. You cannot 
find the most ardent anti-slavery man in 
Wayne county who will go and locate in 
a State that has colored State govern- 
ment. You will absolutely shut off at once, 
and effectually, too, all emigration from 
the Northern States, and from Europe, 
too, whenever that event shall happen. 
Thus they will remain permanently col- 
ored States in the South. The white men 
who are now there would remove from 
them and would not remain under such 

"Very well, say some, that is all very 
well if we can get the negroes to go there. 
But let me say that in such case the col- 
ored States would be a balance of power 
in this country. I ask, is it desirable to 
have a colored State government? I say 

it is not. It is not for many reasons. One 
reason is, that such States would contin- 
ually constitute a balance of power. They 
would be bound together by the strongest 
tie that ever binds men together — the tie 
of color and race — the tie of a down-trod- 
den and despised race. As three hundred 
thousand slave holders by a common tie 
were able to govern this nation for a long 
time, so four millions of people, bound to- 
gether by a much stronger tie — despised 
by the whole world as they have been — 
would constantly vote to act together and 
their united vote would constitute a bal- 
ance of power that might control the gov- 
ernment of the nation. 

"I submit, then, however clearly and 
strongly we may admit the natural rights 
of the negro — I submit to the intelligence 
of the people — that colored State govern- 
ments are not desirable; that they will 
bring about results that are not to be 
hoped for; that finally they would threat- 
en to bring about, and, I believe, would 
result in a war of races. 

"Now the question comes up, how can 
this thing be avoided and yet confer upon 
the negro his rights? Well, if I had the 
power I will tell you how I would avoid 
it. I believe it will be the way in which 
it will be ultimately worked out, for I be- 
lieve the time will come when these rebel 
States will confer upon the negro the right 
of suffrage. If I had the power I would 
arrange it in this way: I would give these 
men just emerged from slavery a pei'iod 
of probation and preparation; I would 
give them time to acquire a little property 
and get a little education; time to learn 
something about the simplest fonns of 
business and prepare themselves for the 
exercise of political rights. By that time 
these Southern States will have been so 
completely filled up by immigration from 
the North and from Europe that the ne- 
groes will be in permanent minority. 
Why? Because the negroes have no immi- 
gration — nothing but the natural increase 
— while we have immigration from all the 
world, and natural increase besides. Thus, 
by postponing the thing only until such 
time as the negroes are qualified to enjoy 
political rights, the dangers I have been 
considering would have fully passed away. 
Their influence would no longer be dan- 
gerous in the manner I have indicated and 
a conflict of races would not be more like- 
ly to happen there than it now is in Mas- 



19 16 

sachusetts. In Massachusetts the negroes 
have exercised political rights for twenty- 
five years, and yet there has been no dis- 
turbance there — no conflict of races. 
Why? Because the negroes have been in 
the minority. They cannot elect a man of 
their own color to any office to bring up 
that prejudice of race. I believe what I 
have stated will be the way in which the 
question will work itself out. But, under 
the policy of Mr. Sumner, we are to ex- 
clude twenty out of every twenty-one men 
in the Southern States and bring forward 
colored voters to fill the places of those 
excluded. The inevitable result of that 
policy would be to establish colored State 
governments and a colored balance of 
power in this Republic, a thing which I 
think most desirable to avoid." 

That the Republicans of Indiana, under 
the leadership of Governor Morton, cher- 
ished a high regard for Andrew Johnson 
is evidenced by this plank in their State 
platform, adopted in February, 1864: 

"Resolved, That the gratitude of the 
American people is due to Andrew John- 
son of Tennessee for his unselfish devotion 
to the cause of the Union, and his patriotic 
and successful eff'orts for the overthrow 
of the rebellion, and that we present his 
name as the choice of our people for the 
Vice-Presidency of the United States." 

At the Republican State Convention 
held in February, 1866, these resolutions 
were given precedence in the platform 
adopted by the Indiana Republicans: 

"Resolved, That we have full faith in 
President Johnson and his Cabinet, and 
in the Union members of both houses of 
Congress, and in the sincere desire and 
determination of all of them to conduct 
the affairs of the Government in such 
manner as to secure the best interests of 
the whole people; and we hereby declare 
that we will sustain them in all constitu- 
tional efforts to restore peace, order and 
permanent union. 

"Resolved, That in Andrew Johnson, 
President of the United States, we recog- 
nize a patriot true, and a statesman tried ; 
that we will support him in all his consti- 
tutional efforts to restore national author- 
ity, law and order among the people of the 
States lately in rebellion, on the basis of 
equal and exact justice to all men; and 

that we pledge to the administration, ex- 
ecutive and legislative, our united and 
hearty co-operation in all wise and pru- 
dent measures devised for the security of 
the Government against rebellion and in- 
surrection in times to come. 

"Resolved, That whilst we endorse the 
President of the United States in his con- 
stitutional efforts for the safety of the 
Union, and the restoration of law and or- 
der, we do hereby express our entire confi- 
dence in the Union majority in Congress 
and pledge to it our cordial support. 

"Resolved, That it is the province of 
the legislative branch of the General Gov- 
ernment to detennine the question of re- 
construction of the States lately in rebel- 
lion against that Government; and that, 
in the exercise of that power. Congress 
should have in view the loyalty of the peo- 
ple in those States, their devotion to the 
Constitution, and obedience to the laws; 
and until the people of those States, by 
their acts, prove themselves loyal to the 
Government, they should not be restored 
to the rights and position enjoyed and 
occupied by them before their rebellion." 

This endorsement of President Johnson 
was unstintedly given five months after 
the delivery of Governor Morton's incisive 
speech at Richmond, and doubtless re- 
flected the views of the Republican party 
at that time, although there had been some 
criticism of Morton's views by the radical 
element, led by Geo. W. Julian and other 
champions of abolitionism. 

It is worthy of note that while the Re- 
publicans carried Indiana by 20,000 major- 
ity in 1864 and by 14,000 in 1866, their 
majority at the October election in 1868 
dwindled down to a little over one thou- 
sand. The defenders of the Union who 
survived the vicissitudes of camp life, 
forced marches, and the carnage of battle, 
had returned to their firesides and re- 
sumed their peaceful occupations, evident- 
ly did not take kindly to the repudiation of 
the principles espoused by Governor Mor- 
ton at Richmond in 1865, else the Repub- 
lican majorities would not have melted 
av, ay as they did. No inconsiderable num- 
ber of Republicans refused to exchange 
Lincolnism for Jacobinism. 

( 223 ) 

[Chapter XXX.] 



(By Major Geo. E. Finney, Editor Martinsville Democrat.) 

ATRIOTISM is a positive quali- 
ty. It is the foundation stone 
on which rests the integrity of 
a nation. It binds, cements, 
conserves in unity and strength 
the institutions of a people. 
Without it no nation could 
be strong, nor long preserve its autono- 
my — could long enjoy internal peace 
or external comity. The love of country 
is not a natural gift, but comes from rea- 
son. Habit, observation and education at- 
tach us to it, and not instinct. In a re- 
public such as ours partisanism may grow 
so strong as to weaken patriotism, and 
though parties are necessary to preserve a 
just equilibrium between diverging inter- 
ests, their tendency to weaken patriotism 
should be guarded against with extreme 
care, and this is a lesson not taught with 
sufficient pertinacity. To illustrate this 
fact it is only necessary to present the 
political state of the public mind just previ- 
ous to the outbreak of the civil war, 
and which in the same words will give the 
reader and student of today a clearer view 
of the deep strength of patriotism that 
characterized the Democrat of the North 
of that day, inducing him to enlist himself 
in the cause destined to preserve intact the 
national existence of the Union, and to 
offer life if need be to thwart the purpose 
of those who for partisan ends would dis- 
member it. 

Persons living since that great political 
crisis cannot form a correct opinion of the 
condition of the public mind in that day, 
which is necessary to a full appreciation 
of the strength of patriotism that actuated 
the hosts of Indiana Democrats in seizing 

the implements of war to repel a large sec- 
tional contingent of their own party in an 
insane purpose to destroy the Union. 

In the year before the breaking out of 
the war there had been a most exciting 
political campaign and election. But for 
two or three years previous to that cam- 
paign there had been heated discussions in 
the press, on the rostrum and amongst the 
citizens of communities over the then lead- 
ing political question of the dissolution of 
the Union. Naturally the Democrats were 
put on the defensive for the reason that 
Southern Democrats, almost wholly, were 
the propagandists of this destructive proj- 
ect. Before any overt acts were essayed, 
the question was regarded purely political, 
and the Democrats of the North were dis- 
posed towards defending by palliating the 
declarations and purpose of their Southern 
political kinsmen — their position being in 
the main that the threat had a political 
aim intended to thwart the political pur- 
pose of the abolition sentiment of the 
North, the abolitionists being held the 
aggressors. In this period came the 
notable national discussion in Illinois be- 
tween Lincoln and Douglas, in which slav- 
ery was the prominent feature. This 
brought the subject to every community 
in the country, and it was the fire-brand 
that set the mind ablaze. So that, when 
the campaign of 1860 came, the people 
were at swords' points — crazed with the 
subject, and allowed their minds to run to 
excess of wild exclamation and abuse. 
Taunts and jeers were hurled and op- 
probrious epithets were applied, and soon 
personal assaults were indulged in when 
the war actually came. The Democratic 
party had split into several fragments in 

8— History 



the campaign, leaving the Republicans to 
an easy victory in the national election, 
and as between this event and the action of 
the electoral college overt acts of dissolu- 
tion had become history, the seceding 
States were not represented, and the 
Democratic party was torn into shreds. 
Previous to this quick succession of polit- 
ical events there had been nothing to call 
out the latent patriotism of either Demo- 
crats or Republicans. But now, to use the 
words, later, of President Cleveland, a con- 
dition and not a theory confronted us. 
Partisanism was thrown aside and patriot- 
ism vivified in the heart ; and though still 
upbraided, taunted, jeered by the Repub- 
licans in the mad flush of a political vic- 
tory, Democrats flocked to the standard 
with the first call to arms and remained 
active under it through the bloody years 
until "the war drums throbbed no longer." 
The patriotism that stirred men to action 
under these circumstances must have been 
deep and abiding, and that kept them in 
service throughout the war, and to those 
who thus proved the possession of unselfish 
love of country, a greater meed of praise is 
due than has often been accorded them. 
Let the writer hereof lay this humble 
tribute-wreath upon the brows of those 
Democrats, living and dead: In the face 
of most ungenerous abuse and contumely, 
with a patriotism untarnished by any base 
sentiment and under the highest motives 
that can animate loyalty, they "saw their 
duty and did it." 

In distinctive contrast with the attitude 
towards Democrats of the great body of 
Republicans, President Lincoln held a 
clearer view and a juster judgment as to 
his duty to the country, and his purpose 
of reclamation of the severed Union. To 
solidify the North in the struggle and to 
show that unlike his party generally he 
felt sure of the patriotism of the Northern 
Democrats, correctly judging them by his 
own high purpose of preserving the unity 
of the States, he sought them out and con- 
ferred upon them high and responsible po- 

sitions. And it is yet to be learned of an 
incident where they betrayed the trust. 
McClellan commanded the army ; he was a 
Democrat. Grant was selected from a 
score of men, and put in command of the 
great armies of the North ; he was a Demo- 
crat, changing his political views and be- 
coming a Republican not until the war 
closed, and in the initial days of the recon- 
struction period. The superb Hancock, 
who held back the South on that blood- 
stained ridge at Gettysburg; a Democrat 
he, and a gallant soldier and heart-whole 
patriot besides. Franz Sigel, Democrat, 
was made a general and given command of 
a force, that with the wiry German at its 
head, became an idol of both our German 
and American citizenship; Sigel was also 
prominent in civil life — elected Register of 
the city of New York in 1871, and was 
Pension Agent for the New York depart- 
ment, appointed by President Cleveland 
during his first term. The Irish, too, were 
represented in the fighting General James 
Shields of Illinois, a Democrat, a statesman 
as well as soldier, who also served the coun- 
try as a United States Senator, holding 
that office in succession from three differ- 
ent States — Illinois, Minnesota and Mis- 
souri. However, it was never necessary to 
"show him," whether in the Senate, as 
Governor of the Oregon Territory or as a 
soldier in the field. He knew. This list 
might be extended greatly, but these names 
are sufficient to show the unselfish loyalty 
of the Democracy, both native and foreign 
born, as well as the wisdom that character- 
ized the great President, Lincoln. 

And many Indiana Democratic soldiers 
— generals, colonels, and men in the ranks 
— with hearts that beat in unison with the 
grand strains of "My Country, 'Tis of 
Thee," marched and slept and suffered and 
fought in the miasmatic swamps, and 
under the festoons of the gray Spanish 
moss ; on the turbid waters of the Missis- 
sippi; in the trenches at Vicksburg; in 
Mobile bay; at Stone's River; at Resaca; 
on the storm-swept sands of Hatteras; 


with Sherman on the march to the sea; 
even challenging the guns above the clouds 
on Missionary Ridge; at the bloody angle 
and on the ridge at Gettysburg; in the 
swamps of the Chickahominy ; working, 
watching and waiting in the trenches at 
Petersburg and Richmond; on the fields all 
over the South, as well as on the ensan- 
guined plains in front of Washington. And 
everywhere they wrote a record of brave 
and faithful service, the great thought 
that animated their souls being to reclaim 
and preserve the Union. On every field 
they paid the price of devotion to a lofty 
patriotism by the ineflfable sacrifice. Why 
not then be placed on their brows in mem- 
ory a wreath bearing the legend — and no 
greater praise can be bestowed on man — 
"They saw their duty and did it." And 
the men that stood beside them, yet es- 
caped the cruel shaft, and who devoted 
their lives since to the upbuilding and re- 
habilitation of the country that was left 
torn and blood-stained — with broken 
bones and saddened mothers, bereft of 
sons or husbands — are no less entitled to 
like honor and praise from those who en- 
joy the fruits of their well-directed labors 
in the dark days of America. 


A good deal was said during and after 
the civil war in regard to the "equivocal 
attitude" assumed and maintained by 
Thomas A. Hendricks with reference to 
the m.ethods of bringing about the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. Mr. Hendricks 
was reluctant to talk about his record, pre- 
ferring that it speak for itself rather than 
that he devote his time to defending it. 
However, at the close of the exciting 
Cleveland and Hendricks campaign of 
1884 occasion presented itself for depart- 
ing from his established custom. Repre- 
sentatives of the Democratic Veteran As- 

sociation of Indiana, headed by Capt. Wm. 
R. Myers of Anderson, called at the hos- 
pitable home of Mr. Hendricks December 
4, 1884, to pay their i-espects to the twice- 
elected vice-president who had eight years 
previously been chosen by a popular ma- 
jority of a quarter of a million votes but 
who, with Tilden, was denied occupancy 
of the office to which he had been assigned 
by the people. In eloquent words Captain 
Myeis paid tribute to the high character 
and the sterling worth of Governor Hen- 
dricks, in reply to which the latter re- 
sponded in this direct manner and in these 
incisive terms : 

"Captain Myers, I am very much grati- 
fied that you have been made the medium 
by your comrades to express to me the 
sentiments of your own .speech, and of the 
address of the Association. You would 
distrust my sincerity were I to say I am 
not gratified at the honor you have done 
me. The congratulations from you and 
your comrades are especially gratifying 
when I consider the fact that you and I 
shared in the contest of last summer, 
which I regard as the greatest of all polit- 
ical contests in this country with which 
1 have been acquainted, and that we have 
come out of that sharing alike in its re- 
sponsibilities and its glory. You have re- 
ferred to one characteristic of the contest 
which I hope never to see repeated in our 
country. The personal attacks and slan- 
der that have been indulged in were un- 
worthy of American politics. I have never 
referred to any of these, .so far as they 
personally concern myself, during the 
campaign, and will only do so now very 
briefly. During the first month of the 
war I found it necessary to correct one 
of these misrepresentations, and at that 
time used the following language : 

Since the war commenced I have uniformly said 
that the authority of the Government of the 
United States is not questioned in Indiana, and I 
regard it as the duty of the citizens of Indiana to 
respect and maintain that authority, and to give 
the Government an earnest support in the prose- 
cution of the war, until in the province of God it 
may be brought to an honorable conclusion and the 
blessings of peace restored to our country, post- 
poning until that time all controversy in relation 
to the causes and responsibilities of the war. No 
man vnVl feel a deeper solicitude for the Indiana 
soldiers as long as the conflict remains to which 
they are called, than myself. 

( 227) 


"The sentiments then expressed guided 
my conduct throughout the war. One of 
the political leaders of the times charged 
that I failed in my duty in having opposed 
the law for the drafts. To opposition to 
the draft I must plead guilty. I favored 
an army of volunteers, encouraged by suit- 
able bounties ; and during the first month 
of my service in the Senate I said that I 
desired to express the opinion that Con- 
gress should encourage volunteering, 
rather than rely on what many deemed an 
unpopular measure of the Government, 
namely, a draft. I did not regard the 
draft as a reliable support for the army. 
Prior to that time 125,000 had been 
drafted, 6,000 entered service under the 
draft, 10,000 substitutes were furnished, 
and 20,000 M'ere induced to volunteer by 
the bounties that these commutations en- 
abled the department to pay. The draft 
of 125,000 resulted in 36,600. soldiers in 
the field. I believed then, as I have be- 
lieved ever since, that volunteers, encour- 
aged by suitable bounties, relieving them 
from anxiety about providing for their 
homes, gave the best assurance of support 
to the army. The same politician to whom 
I have referred, speaking of myself, said : 
'He did not vote in favor of any measure 
that looked to cariying on the war.' I 
will refer to but two acts of mine in the 
Senate in answer to that statement. On 
the 23d of April, 1864, I offered an amend- 
ment to the Appropriation Bill, to increase 

the pay of the soldiers and non-commis- 
sioned oflScers reasonably in proportion to 
the then depreciated condition of the cur- 
rency. I thought that proposition was 
an encouragement to the army and to en- 
listments, and I may say that Colonel 
Lane, then my colleague in the Senate, 
voted with me on that subject. On the 
same day I voted for the great Appro- 
priation Bill for the army, for the year 
from June 30, 1864 to June 30, 1865— 
I believe the largest Appropriation Bill 
ever cassed by this Government — voting 
$530,000,000; and under that appropria- 
tion the army was carried to the close of 
the war; under it many of the battles 
were fought, and under it Sherman 
marched to the sea, and the surrender 
was made to Grant." 

Vice-President-elect Hendricks closed 
by expressing his gratification at meeting 
the Democratic Soldiers and Sailors' Vet- 
eran Association of Indiana on this oc- 
casion and in his own home, and tendered 
them his thanks, not only for the honor 
they had done him, but for the support 
they had given him in the great contest 
then just closed. 

(For obvious reasons it is deemed fitting 
to give this instructive information in this 
part of the History instead of farther back 
in its regular or chronological order.) 

[Chapter XXXI.] 



and to the infinite delight of the assem- 
bled multitude that champion of popular 
rights pitilessly exposed the tyrannical 
program of the Jacobins then in the sad- 
dle and appealed eloquently to the sense 
of justice that has ever been assumed to 
serve as a guidance to a fair-minded and 
justice-loving people. Great outbursts of 
applause punctuated the able and eloquent 
address of Mr. Voorhees. 

ml HE Democratic State Conven- 
tion of 1866 partook somewhat 
of the character of a reunion 
and a love feast. It vi^as held 
— ' at Indianapolis, March 15. The 

night before a largely at- 
tended meeting was held at the 
old State House, packed to capacity. 
This meeting was presided over by An- 
drew Humphreys, of Greene county. 
Speeches of a more or less inspiring and 
inspiriting character were made by Jason 
B. Brov/n of Seymour, Colonel Isaiah B. 
McDonald of Columbia City, Judge Robert 
Lowry of Goshen, Cyrus S. McNutt of 
Martinsville, Colonel J. W. Blake of Indi- 
anapolis, and Judge D. T. Laird of 

The convention proper was called to or- 
der by State Chairman Joseph J. Bing- 
ham. Colonel Cyrus L. Dunham, of New 
Albany, was chosen temporary and after- 
ward permanent chairman. In his cus- 
tomary forceful style the presiding officer 
addressed the assembly on the issues of 
the day, presenting strong points in sup- 
port of the policies advocated by the De- 
mocracy and giving due credit to Presi- 
dent Andrew Johnson in seeking to re- 
establish harmonious relations between 
North and South. 

So deeply interested was the convention 
in listening to the words of truth and wis- 
dom as they fell from the lips of Colonel 
Dunham that at the close of his masterly 
effort insistent demand was made for 
more oratoiy. Naturally the delegates 
turned their faces to where the "Tall Syca- 
more of the Wabash" was seated. Loud 
calls for Voorhees brought that master of 
oratory to his feet. At considerable length 


1. George E. Greene, Knox county. 

2. Levi Sparks, Clark. 

3. B. F. Jones, Bartholomew. 

4. William S. Hall, Rush. 

5. W. P. Applegate, Fayette. 

6. W. H. Talbott, Aquilla Jones, R. H. Hall, 

Valentine Butsch, William S. Jennings. 

7. Thomas Dowling, Vigo. 

8. L. B. Stockton, Tippecanoe. 

9. Thomas D. Lemon, Laporte. 

10. Thomas Davenport, Kosciusko. 

11. James Sweetzer, Grant. 

Secretary of State — General Mahlon D. Manson, 

Auditor — Christian G. Badger, Clark. 
Treasurer — James B. Ryan, Marion. 
Attorney-General — John R. Coffroth, Huntington. 
Superintendent of Public Instruction— R. M. 

Chapman, Knox. 


"Resolved, That among the powers re- 
served to the States, that of withdrawal 
at will from the Union cannot be found, 
and consequently, such doctrine can be 
asserted only as a revolutionaiy measure, 
and not peaceably as a right ; and the late 
action of the Southern people, in resorting 
to such means as a mode of redress of 
grievances, was illegal, and had no sus- 
taining principle but that of physical 
force, and that, having proved insufficient, 
those principles became remitted to their 



constitutional obligations or rights, of 
which obedience and protection are chief. 

"Resolved. That the principles avowed 
by President Johnson in his annual mes- 
sage, looking to the early practical resto- 
ration of all the States to their rights in 
the Union, meets with our hearty ap- 
proval; and the action of the majority 
in Congress, dictated as it may be by re- 
venge, fanaticism, or thirst for political 
power, and being exerted to thrust such 
States out of the Union, we solemnly con- 
demn ; therefore, we cordially endorse the 
veto of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and 
declare that in our judgment the courage 
displayed, the doctrines avowed, and the 
high sense of rights manifested in that 
message, and subsequent speeches, prom- 
ise well for the future administration of 
the President, and we hereby pledge him 
the earnest and disinterested support of 
the Indiana Democracy in all his conflicts 
with that fanatical congressional ma- 
jority in his laudable eff'orts to prevent 
them from changing or destroying our 
cherished form of government. 

"Resolved, That, in our opinion, the sole 
power of the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives over the admission of members 
to their respective chambers, is confined 
to the 'election, return, and qualification 
of its members respectively ;' that this con- 
vention further declares its conviction 
that Congress, in rejecting from repre- 
sentation eleven States acknowledged to be 
in the Union, by having their votes 
counted in favor of the Constitutional 
amendment abolishing slavery, the Senate 
and House have usurped powers not dele- 
gated to them by the Constitution, and 
are acting in violation thereof. We further 
believe that all members from the 
Southern States who have been lately 
elected, and possess the constitutional 
qualifications, should be immediately ad- 
mitted and upon the refusal of Congress 
to admit the members of such States to 
their seats, it is the prerogative and duty 
of the President of the United States to 
defend and uphold the integrity of every 
State now in the Union, and 'to take care 
that the laws are faithfully executed.' 

"Resolved, That the soldiers who left 
the comforts of a home to sustain the flag 
of our country, are entitled to, and should 
receive, the heartfelt thanks of a grateful 
people. And those who early rushed to 
the standard should, by the action of Con- 

gress, be equally remunerated, by an 
equalization of bounties, or otherwise, 
with their brethren who, at a later day, 
were called upon to fill that highest duty 
of a citizen. 

"Resolved, That the vote of the House of 
Representatives conferring the right of 
suffrage on negroes, against the almost 
unanimous vote of the people of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, shows a recklessness 
which none but fanatics would defend, 
and none but tyrants practice; and we 
hereby denounce that vote as a precursor 
of universal negro sufi'rage, and to other 
outrages upon the rights and liberties of 
the people of the various States. 

"Resolved, That we are opposed to the 
repeal of the 13th article of the Consti- 
tution of Indiana prohibiting negroes and 
mulattoes from settling in this State, and 
nov/, more than ever, deprecate the en- 
trance of that class of persons within its 
borders; and we most emphatically con- 
demn and disapprove the action of the 
Republican majority in the late General 
Assembly of Indiana in passing through 
the House a joint resolution providing for 
the abrogation of that article in the Con- 

"Resolved, That Senator Hendricks, and 
Representatives Niblack, Kerr and Voor- 
hees, by their untiring devotion to con- 
stitutional liberty, have shown themselves 
true patriots; and the expulsion of Mr. 
Voorhees from the House we denounce 
a high-handed outrage of a profligate, un- 
scrupulous party." 

It will be observed that President John- 
son's course met with approval in both 
the Democratic and Republican State plat- 
forms. There was, however, this differ- 
ence: As Democrats "warmed up" to 
Johnson, the Republicans became more 
and more chilly, so that toward the close 
of the 1866 campaign not much regard for 
the Republican platform endorsement of 
President Johnson lingered in the minds 
of those who conducted the campaign. As 
a matter of fact, radical Republican sen- 
timent was by that time strongly tinctured 
with open hostility to the Johnson ad- 



1 8 1 6 - 1 9 1 i; 


Secretary of State — Colonel Nelson Trusler, Fay- 
ette county. 
Auditor of State — Thomas B. McCarty. Wabash 

Treasurer of State — General Nathan Kimball, 

Martin county. 
Attorney-General — Delana E. Williamson, Put- 
nam county. 
Superintendent of Public Instruction — George W. 
Hoss, Marion county. 

The net result of the 1866 election was 
the triumph of the Republican State 
ticket, the election of a Republican Legis- 
lature, and the success of eight of the 
eleven Republican candidates for Con- 
gress. A Republican Legislature for 1867 
foreshadowed the election of Oliver P. 
Morton to the United States Senate to suc- 
ceed Henry S. Lane. 




Nelson Trusler, Republican 169,601 14,202 

Mahlon D. Manson, Democrat. 



Thomas B. McCarty, Republican. .169,.')72 14,171 
Christian G. Badger, Democrat. . .125,401 


Nathan Kimball, Republican 169,815 14,525 

James B. Ryan, Democrat 155,290 

Delana E. Williamson. Republican. 169,732 14,357 
John R. Coffroth, Democrat 155,375 


George W. Hoss, Republican. .. .168.157 12,779 
Robert M. Chapman, Democrat 155,378 



William E. Niblack, Democrat 1,350 

Michael C. Kerr, Democrat 1,743 

Gen. Morton C. Hunter, Republican 690 

William S. Holman, Democrat 869 

George W. Julian, Republican 6,228 

John Coburn, Republican 2,574 

Henry D. Washburn, Republican 513 

Godlove S. Orth, Republican 205 

Schuyler Colfax, Republican 2,148 

Major Wm. Williams, Republican 1,272 

Gen. John P. C. Shanks, Republican 2,877 

- * Ni- 


[Chapter XXXIL] 



FOR 1868 

HE attendance at Democracy's 

T State Convention, January 8, 
1868, was unusually large and 
exceptionally enthusiastic. A 
temporary organization was ef- 
fected the night before. Con- 
gressman Wm. E. Niblack hav- 
ing been chosen to pi'eside. Daniel W. 
Voorhees electrified the audience with an 
address that by a number of his elated 
hearers was pronounced the ablest and 
most eloquent the "Tall Sycamore of the 
Wabash" had ever delivered. He was in 
excellent trim, his delivery was thrilling, 
his argumentation masterly. Enthusiastic 
applause punctuated his speech from be- 
ginning to end. As he uttered his closing 
sentence he was honored with an ovation 
of which any great orator might well have 
felt proud. It was a great night for Dem- 
ocratic enthusiasm. 

For pei-manent chairman the Committee 
on Organization named Joseph E. Mc- 
Donald, which selection was ratified with 
unanimity and enthusiasm. Mr. McDonald, 
on taking the chair, delivered a speech in 
the course of which he arraigned the Re- 
publican party for its disregard of con- 
stitutional limitations, its revolutionary 
program for subjugating the people of the 
South after having laid down their arms 
and returned to their allegiance to the 
Union. He gave hearty approval to the 
patriotic course of President Johnson. 


Governor — Thomas A. Hendricks, Indianapolis. 

Lieutenant-Governor — Alfred P. Edgerton, Fort 

Secretary of State — Reuben C. Kise, Lebanon. 

Auditor — Joseph V. BemusdaflFer, Laurel. 

Treasurer — James B. Ryan, Indianapolis. 

Clerk Supreme Court — Noah S. LaRose, Logans- 

Reporter Supreme Court — M. A. O. Packard, 

Superintendent Public Instruction— John R. 
Phillips, Daviess county. 

Attorney-General — Solomon Claypool, Green- 


1. George E. Greene, Knox county. 

2. Levi Sparks, Clark. 

3. Thomas J. Reilly, Jennings. 

4. C. B. Bentley, Franklin. 

5. Dr. H. F. Barnes, Union. 

6. Andrew Humphreys, Greene. 

6. Dr. James McWorkman, Boone. 

7. James Sweetzer, Grant. 

8. John Enos Neff, Randolph. 

9. James McConnell, Noble. 
10. John P. Early, Laporte. 

Lafe Develin, Marion, Chairman. 


At Large — Daniel W. Voorhees, Vigo; J. E. Mc- 
Donald, Marion; Graham N. Fitch, Cass; W. E. 
Niblack, Knox. 

Contingent Delegates at Large — Francis T. 
Hord, Bartholomew; George C. Thatcher, Shelby; 
W. H. Beck, Fayette; Murray Briggs, Sullivan. 

1. A. T. Whittlesey, Vanderburg county. 
W. S. Turner, Daviess. 

2. James A. Cravens, Washington. 
David Huffstetter, Orange. 

3. H. W. Harrington, Jefferson. 
W. T. Pate, Switzerland. 

4. Lafe Develin, Wayne. 
John W. Carleton, Shelby. 

5. W. H. Talbott, Marion. 
D. G. Vawter, Johnson. 

6. Samuel H. Buskirk, Monroe. 
Chambers Y. Patterson, Vigo. 

7. General M. D. Manson, Montgomery. 
Harris Reynolds, Fountain. 

8. R. P. Effinger, Miami. 
J. M. Dickson, Madison. 

9. E. Sturgis. Allen. 
Adam Wolf, Delaware. 

10. General J. R. Slack, Huntington. 
Samuel W. Sprott, DeKalb. 

11. T. J. Merrifield, Porter. 
C. H. Reeve, Marshall. 


18 16-1916 


At Large — John R. Coffroth, Huntington county; 
Bayless W. Hanna, Vigo. 

1. Thomas R. Cobb, Knox county. 

2. C. S. Dobbins, Martin. 

3. James Gavin, Decatur. 

4. John S. Reid, Fayette. 

5. Captain John M. Lord, Marion. 

6. A. B. Carleton, Lawrence. 

7. T. F. Davidson, Fountain. 

8. James F. McDowell, Grant. 

9. John Colerick, Allen. 

10. O. H. Main, Elkhart. 

11. Thomas J. Merrifield, Valparaiso. 

The state campaign was vigorously con- 
ducted. A joint discussion between Gov- 
ernor Baker and Senator Hendricks had 
the effect of awakening deep interest 
throughout the State. Each Congressional 
District was honored with one of these 
oratorical combats. While Senator Hen- 
dricks doubtless had a decided advantage 
over his competitor in his commanding 
personalitj'^ and in the graces of oratory, 
Governor Baker was not to be despised 
as a campaigner. He was forceful, logical, 
and persuasive. The writer attended two 
of these joint discussions, one at South 
Bend, the other at Auburn. At a little 
gathering of Democrats, after the South 
Bend discussion. Senator Hendricks took 
occasion to remark that Democrats made 
a great mistake in trying to disparage 
Baker as a debater or to belittle him in 
other respects; that Baker had revealed 
himself as possessed of unusual ability 
and no little adroitness in turning points 
to advantage. The debates were marked 
by the utmost civility and the absence of 
anything like discourtesy. That these two 
men learned to esteem and appreciate one 
another during this oratorical tournament 
is evidenced by the fact that some years 
afterward they formed a co-partnership 
m the practice of law at Indianapolis. 

In his campaign speeches Mr. Hen- 
dricks adhered closely to the definition of 
constitutional doctrine as set forth in an 
exceedingly able banquet speech delivered 
by Attorney-General Henry Stanbery at 

Washington, .January 8, 1868, in the 
course of which that eminent jurist — a 
former Whig and later on a Republican, 
but at the time a staunch supporter of the 
Lincoln-Johnson policy — epitomized the 
living issues in these terse sentences : 

"The Constitution as it is; the limita- 
tion of Federal power within the just and 
well-defined boundaries of the Constitu- 
tion and not outside of the Constitu- 
tion; civil law instead of military law; 
free elections and constitutions formed by 
the people of the States, and not by the 
people of other States, whether in Con- 
gress or out of Congress." 


As usual, the State platform was drawn 
out at great length. Terseness and brev- 
ity have hardly ever commended them- 
selves to Indiana platform-makers. The 
idea seems to have become generally prev- 
alent that unless a platform is somewhere 
in the neighborhood of a yard in length, 
som.ething must have been omitted, 
slighted, or gotten away with. The ideal 
party platform-maker was Samuel J. Til- 
den. When he was in command in New 
York, the platforms put forth by the Em- 
pire State Democracy were models of di- 
rectness, brevity and terseness. 

The more important planks of the 
Indiana Democratic platforms are here re- 
produced as reminders of how Democrats 
in this State felt three years after the 
close of the civil war : 

"Resolved, That language is not ade- 
quate to express our abhorrence and con- 
demnation of the Radical reconstruction 
policy of Congress — a policy condemned 
by every consideration of justice and con- 
stitutional obligation; a policy fraught 
with the most alarming apprehensions of 
evil to ten States of the Union, and of 
destruction to the Union itself; a policy 
that largely increases taxation; a policy 
that requires a large standing army, which 
adds nearly one hundred million dollars 
annually to the expenses of the Govern- 
ment, while it beggars the people ; a policy 
the avowed object of which is to continue 
in power the most venal and corrupt polit- 



ical party that ever dishonored any civ- 
ilization ; a policy vindictively enacted and 
mercilessly prosecuted with the unconsti- 
tutional purpose of centralizing and per- 
petuating all political powers of the Gov- 
ernment in the dominant Radical party in 
Congress, and a policy which if not early 
arrested by the American people, will 
sooner or later overwhelm our national 
Government in one common and appalling 
ruin. We demand the unconditional re- 
peal of the act of Congress conferring ex- 
clusive rights or privileges upon any class 
or classes of citizens at the expense of 
other classes. 

"That the national bank system organ- 
ized in the interest of the bondholders 
ought to be abolished, and United States 
notes substituted in lieu of the national 
bank currency, thus saving to the people 
interest alone more than eighteen million 
dollars a year; and, until such system of 
banks be abolished, we demand that the 
shares of such banks in Indiana shall be 
subjected to the same taxation. State and 
municipal, as other property of the State. 

"That the bonds and other securities of 
the United States and eveiy description of 
property should bear equal proportion of 
taxation for State, county, and municipal 
purposes, and to that end the bonds and 
other securities of the United States ought 
to be taxed by Congress for national pui-- 
poses in amount substantially equal to the 
tax imposed on property in the several 
States for local purposes. 

"That we are in favor of the payment of 
the Government bonds in Treasury notes, 
commonly called greenbacks, except ex- 
pressly made payable in gold by law, at 
the earliest practicable point. 

"That the unjust and iniquitous tariff 
laws now in force ought to be repealed, 
and the tariff adopted looking to revenue 

"That M'e are opposed to conferring the 
right of suffrage on negroes. We deny the 
right of the General Government to in- 
terfere with the question of suffrage in 
any of the States of the Union. 

"That we shall ever hold in sacred rec- 
ollection the dead who freely sacrificed 
their lives for the defense of our glorious 
Union, that the present and future gener- 
ations might enjoy the rich inheritance of 
a form of government that secures an 
equality of rights and privileges to all the 
citizens thereof; that the nation owes to 

the surviving soldiers and sailors of the 
Union the highest marks of praise and 
gratitude for the great sacrifices they 
made in the late war, and to those disabled 
in the service of the Union, and the 
widows and orphan children of those who 
fell in battle, or died of wounds, or in 
the military service of the Union, such 
personal aid as will enable them to enjoy 
the substantial necessaries of life. 

"That we recognize in the restoration 
measures of Andrew John.son, President 
of the United States, a policy which would 
have given peace, security, and prosperity 
to the State, and dispelled the dark clouds 
caused by the vindictive measures of a 
Radical Congress. The adoption of the 
President's policy would, in our opinion, 
have saved the nation the expenditure of 
untold millions of treasure, lessened the 
burden of taxation, secured peace to the 
South, and prosperity to the Union. 

"That Major-General Hancock, by his 
order at New Orleans, reinstating the civil 
law and dethroning the military despot- 
ism, has manifested the highest respect 
for constitutional liberty, for which he de- 
serves the commendation of all friends of 
constitutional government, and who revere 
the noble profession of arms. Like the 
great and good Washington, this gallant 
soldier had learned to respect the civil 
rights of all good citizens, and to declare 
that in time of peace military tribunals 
should have no place in our jurisprudence. 
Eternal honor to the soldier who refused 
to rise above the laws ! 

"That we congratulate the Democracy 
of our sister State of Ohio on the gal- 
lant political campaign closed on the 8th 
day of October, 1867 — a campaign marked 
by the highest order of devotion, ability, 
and effect, and that prominent and close 
in the association in the minds of our fel- 
low-citizens of Indiana stands the name of 
the Hon. George H. Pendleton, identified 
with the vital measures upon which our 
party enters the canvass for 1868, together 
with his ability as a statesman and his 
high personal qualities. All these entitle 
him to the commendation of the conven- 
tion as a true and consistent Democrat, 
and one who has our entire confidence and 

The Presidential campaign engaged 
popular attention to a far greater extent 
than did State issues. The latter received 



19 16 

but slight consideration; indeed, it is not 
quite certain that there were any such. 

In somewhat subdued form the Indiana 
delegation to the Democratic convention 
was considered instructed to vote for the 
nomination of Geo. H. Pendleton of Ohio, 
for the Presidency. "Gentleman George," 
by which cognomen that estimable citizen 
and statesman was popularly known, was 
General Geo. B. McClellan's running mate 
in 1864 and achieved high reputation as a 
captivating campaigner. From a pro- 
nounced hard money champion he devel- 
oped into a still more pronounced soft 
money (greenback) advocate. His "plan" 
commended itself greatly to Indiana Dem- 
ocrats, so when the State convention 
named delegates to the New York conven- 
tion the Pendleton boom experienced 
quite an impetus. But among the delegates 
were a goodly number of those who looked 
upon Thomas A. Hendricks as being far 
more available than they adjudged the 
gentleman from Ohio to be. A strong 
Hendricks sentiment developed during the 
earlier sessions of the New York conven- 
tion. During the protracted balloting he 
received as high as 140 votes — nearly as 
many as had been given Pendleton when 
Pendleton stock ranged highest. Had 
Indiana formally agreed to put Hendricks 
into the race there is but little doubt that 
he would have been nominated with a 
whirl. The Bright influence would not 
permit this to be done. While that wily 
politician, Jesse D. Bright, ostensibly 
boosted the Pendleton movement, he was 
in reality in favor of making Chief 
Justice Salmon P. Chase the Democratic 
presidential nominee. The alacrity with 
which politicians of radical views can flop 
from one extreme to another has not in- 
frequently furnished both amusement and 
amazement to sticklers for consistency. 
It was common belief that C. L. Vallandig- 
ham of Ohio, another anti-war propa- 
gandist, favored the nomination of Chief 
Justice Chase. The insurmountable ob- 

stacle to making a reality of this scheme 
was Samuel J. Tilden, who was known to 
be uncompromisingly opposed to any oc- 
cupant of a judicial position being nom- 
inated to political office. New York had 
instructed its delegation to vote for Chief 
Justice Sanford E. Church, but when dis- 
covery was made that that eminent jurist 
couldn't get any votes from other States, 
New York withdrew the name of Judge 
Church after the sixth ballot. There was 
a good deal of fencing. Several days were 
consumed in ineffective balloting. The 
patience of delegates was fast being ex- 
hausted. Then a stampede thrust the 
nomination on Horatio Seymour, who did 
his utmost to escape the ordeal of a presi- 
dential campaign, chiefly on account of his 
impaired physical condition, but perhaps 
still more so by reason of the inner con- 
sciousness that Democratic success that 
year was unattainable. Seymour was a 
grand character, a man of eminent ability, 
but he was not available presidential tim- 
ber, and no one understood this better 
than he himself. Certainty of the ticket's 
defeat v/as in a sense invited by the nom- 
ination of General Frank P. Blair for the 
vice-presidency. Blair had up to that time 
been a rank Republican. He was vehement 
in the denunciation of Republican recon- 
struction measures and in charging Gen- 
eral Grant with aiming to crown himself 
with Caesarism — that if elected, he 
would never leave the Presidential man- 
sion alive. The New York World and other 
influential Democratic papers in vain re- 
monstrated against such extravagance of 
speech. Demands for his removal from 
the ticket were made, but they fell upon 
deaf ears. At the November election Sey- 
mour and Blair polled 2,703,249 votes to 
3,012,833 for Grant and Colfax. In the 
electoral college Grant and Colfax had 
214; SejTTiour and Blair, 80. New York 
gave Seymour an even 10,000 majority. 
New Jersey 2,880, and Oregon 1,064. 
These three v/ere the only Northern 


States that were carried for Seymour and 
Blair. While at the October election in 
Indiana Thomas A. Hendricks polled 
170,614 votes, Seymour's vote in Novem- 
ber was 166,980. Hendricks was beaten 
by 961 ; Seymour by 9,572. 

For many years there was printed at 
Indianapolis an able and influential Ger- 
man weekly paper called "Indiana Volks- 
blatt." Its publisher was Julius Boetti- 
cher, a fine gentleman and clear thinker. 
After the war Mr. Boetticher had his po- 
litical editorials of a national character 
written by the Hon. Emil Rothe, of Cin- 
cinnati, who while a resident of Wiscon- 
sin used to engage in joint discussions 
with Carl Schurz. 

Rothe was a veiy able man and a thor- 
ough Democrat. In a series of articles 
the nomination of General Winfield Scott 
Hancock for president and Wm. S. Groes- 
beck of Cincinnati for vice-president was 
strongly urged through the columns of the 
VolksbJatt. There is no doubt that a ticket 
composed of these two great, good, and 
popular men would have commanded a 
far more enthusiastic support than did 
Seymour and Blair. Hancock and Groes- 
beck was the logical combination for that 
period in our country's history. But, un- 
fortunately, logic doesn't always guide the 
action of political bodies. It surely didn't 
in 1868. 

While the nomination of Seymour was 
generally adjudged a spontaneous affair, 
one of the delegates from Northern Indi- 
ana, Major Samuel W. Sprott, a red-hot 
Pendletonite, related upon his return from 
New York that ten minutes after Sey- 
mour's nomination banners and transpar- 
encies with Seymour inscriptions were 
brought forth in a popular demonstration. 
To satisfy himself whether these inscrip- 
tions had just been hurriedly put on can- 
vass he stepped up to one of the most 
imposing ones to ascertain by touch of 
finger whether it was fresh or dry. "Egad, 

it's dry!" the Major exclaimed with an 
expressive twinkle of the eye. 

One of the notable characters among 
the Indiana delegates was Charles H. 
Reeve of Plymouth. Whatever he favored 
he backed with energy and zeal. There 
was nothing of the equivocal in his make- 
up. And he prided himself a good deal on 
the originality of his views and the sound- 
ness of his conclusions. He was a man 
of unquestionable ability and inflexible in- 
tegrity, but at times he was also eccentric, 
and not always consistent. In 1868 he 
was a "red-hot" champion of Pendleton 
and a greenback circulating medium, and 
in 1896 he refused to support Bryan on 
account of his attitude on the silver coin- 
age issue. He was for plenty of green- 
backs in 1868, but averse to a superabund- 
ance of silver in 1896. In discussing 
Reeve's eccentricity in these particulars 
Mr. Hendricks once upon a time smilingly 
remarked that if Charley Reeve had lived 
in the days of Christ he (Hendricks) felt 
certain that the Senator from Marshall 
would have moved to amend the Lord's 
prayer. Notwithstanding his eccentrici- 
ties, Senator Reeve was in many respects 
a most companionable gentleman and a 
highly estimable citizen. He took great 
delight in expressing his views through 
the columns of the public press. Usually 
he signed his name to his contributions; 
at times he would use a pseudonym. He 
did this when in 1874 he published a com- 
munication in the Indinnapolis Sc)iti)iel of 
March 11 which was headed "Hendricks 
a Democratic Caesar." In this article Sen- 
ator Reeve asserted it to be known to 
the friends of Hendricks that "he lacks 
firmness and yields to pressure." "His 
natural kindness induces him to surrender 
his own better judgment to the importu- 
nity of his friends." "Had he the firmness 
of Jackson he would be the idol of the 
people today." 

The article then relates how George H. 
Pendleton led for the presidential nomina- 



tion in the New York convention, but that 
Tammany was scheming against him, the 
convention being held in Tammany hall. 
On the fourth ballot the chairman of the 
Indiana delegation asked they be excused 
from the hall for a time in order to con- 
sult among themselves. The chairman 
led them out and explained the conference 
was over the proposition of bringing out 
Hendricks; that Pendleton could not be 
named and New York would vote en masse 
for Hendricks. Joseph E. McDonald op- 
posed the movement, while Voorhees in- 
sisted upon it peremptorily. A messenger 
came to the door for the sixth, seventh, 
and perhaps eighth ballot. No vote was 
taken by the Indiana delegation, but some 
one shouted "for Pendleton," and it was 
so cast. On the next ballot Indiana di- 
vided between Hendricks and Pendleton. 
Richard J. Bright, on behalf of the mi- 
nority, expressed dissent, as the delega- 
tion had been instructed for Pendleton. 
New York divided its vote. Some of the 
delegates accused Hendricks of permitting 
the use of his name, and claimed that 
every ballot was being telegraphed him. 
It was also claimed that Voorhees, Fitch 
and Niblack wanted a chance at the Senate 
and Governor's seat, and for that reason 
were behind the Hendricks movement. 

Thp next day the Indiana delegation, 
fearing all was lost, the minority consent- 
ing, cast its vote for Hendricks. Ohio was 
angered and finally withdrew Pendleton. 
Seymour, who had been nominated several 
times, always declining, sat pulling his 
scraggly hair. Ohio swung to Seymour, 
as did the other States, and finally 


Conrad Baker, Republican 171,575 961 

Thomas A. Hendricks, Democrat. .170,614 


William Cumback, Republican 171,711 1,332 

A. P. Edgerton, Democrat 170,379 

EMOCRACY— 1816-1916 


M. A. F. Hoffman, Republican 171,293 967 

Reuben C. Kise, Democrat 170,326 


John D. Evans, Republican 171,699 1,383 

Jos. V. Bemusdaffer, Democrat 170,316 


Nathan Kimball, Republican 171,576 1,295 

James B. Ryan, Democrat 170,281 


D. E. Williamson, Republican 171,696 1,351 

Solomon Claypool, Democrat 170,345 


B. C. Hobbs, Republican 171,606 1,231 

J. R. Phillips, Democrat 170,375 


T. W. McCoy, Republican 171,618 1,221 

Noah S. LaRose, Democrat 170,397 


J. B. Black, Republican 171,688 1,430 

M. A. 0. Packard, Democrat 170,258 


W. E. Niblack, Democrat 1,496 

M. C. Kerr, Democrat 6,434 

W. S. Holman, Democrat 762 

George W. Julian, Republican.. 116 

John Coburn, Republican 1,032 

D. W. Voorhees, Democrat 128 

Godlove S. Orth, Republican... 667 

D. D. Pratt, Republican 2,287 

J. P. C. Shanks, Republican... 941 
William Williams, Republican. .2,313 
Jasper Packard, Republican. . . .1,221 
The surprising feature of the October 
election was the discrepancy between the 
Republican preponderance in the outcome 
of the Congressional contests and the in- 
significance of the Republican majority 
for Governor and other State officers. 
That the Republicans elected seven of the 
eleven members of Congress with so small 
a diflFerence in the aggregate vote may 
to some extent have been due to personal 
popularity or to superiority in campaign- 
ing, but the stronger probability is that 
the real factor of the seven to four in- 
taking was the skillful manner in which 
the State had been gerrymandered for 


Congressional purposes. The dispropor- The Fifteenth Amendment to the Con- 
tion of representation in the Legislature stitution of the United States, which con- 
was also in the main ascribable to the free ferred the privilege of suffrage on the ne- 
application of the gerrymandering process gro, a provision setting forth that the 
in apportioning the State for legislative right of citizens to vote shall not be denied 
purposes. or abridged by the United States or any 
The serious aspect of Republican State on account of race, color, or pre- 
ascendency in the Legislature at that time ^ious condition of servitude, was submit- 
was the pendency of the 15th amendment ted by Congress to the Legislatures of the 
to the Federal Constitution providing for thirty-seven States and declared in effect 
the introduction of negro suffrage '" ^ kittle over a year's time, 
throughout the Union. In a number of The submission was made by the For- 
States the proposition to enfranchise the tieth Congress on February 27, 1869, and 
negro through State action had been sub- the proclamation of the Secretary of State 
mitted to popular Vote and invariably re- was dated March 30, 1870. Ratification 
jected. Then it was that the idea of con- was voted by the Legislatures of twenty- 
ferring the right of suffrage upon negroes "i^e States. New York gave its consent 
by amendment to the Federal Constitution in April, 1869, but rescinded this action 
was conceived and in course of time put January 5, 1870. The first action taken 
into effect. A recital of the manner in by the Ohio Legislature, on May 4, 1869, 
which this was done will always be an was unfavorable. New Jersey, after hav- 
interesting and instructive, though ever ^^S rejected the amendment, gave its ap- 
humiliating, chapter of political history. Proval on February 21, 1871, subsequent 

In Indiana a most determined fight was to the proclamation, 

made to prevent the ratification of this The States rejecting the amendment 

amendment. Rather than be made a party were California, Delaware, Kentucky, 

to ratification the Democratic members of Maryland, Oregon and Tennessee, 

the Legislature resigned in a body. A Those States voting acceptance acted on 

special election was ordered by Governor the following dates: 

Baker. At this election the course of those Nevada March l, 1869 

who had tendered their resignations was West Virginia March 3,1869 

emphatically endorsed by triumphant re- ^°'^^. Ca'-o""^ March 5, 1869 

, ,. ™, . ,. . J, .^ u 11 i Louisiana March 5,1869 

elections. This verdict of the ballot mi^^i^ March 5,1869 

stands out in bold relief as an inextin- Michigan March 8,1869 

guishable protest against the unwisest and Wisconsin March 9, 1869 

most pernicious act committed in time of Massachusetts March 12, 1869 

peace fro,n the beginning of the Republic "^h c.;..„„.- .: ::l":l \l 'Z 

to the present time. Pennsylvania March 26, 1869 

Oliver P. Morton took his seat as United Arkansas March 30, 1869 

States Senator March 4, 1867. Having New York April 14,1869 

silently, without explanation Or justifica- i"'^*-'^"^ ^^^ ]t' ]ltl 

, , , , ^ , , , Connecticut May 19, 1869 

tion, gone clear back on what he so ably p,^,.ij^ j^„e 15^ iggg 

espoused in his forceful and incontrovert- New Hampshire July 7, 1869 

ible Richmond speech, he became actively Virginia Oct. 8, 1869 

enlisted in the advocacy of the radical Vermont Oct. 21,1869 

,,,,,. , . . ^, Alabama Nov. 24, 1869 

measures that had inception in the mer- ^jj^^^^^i j^^ ^0^ 18^0 

Ciless souls of those who blindly followed Mississippi .Jan. 17, 1870 

the behests of vindictive Thad. Stevens. Rhode Island .Jan. 18,1870 


Kansas Jan. 19, 1870 If you Mall assure me of the appointment, 

Ohio Jan. 27, 1870 I will withdraw from the contest for any 

Georgia Feb. 2, 1870 position on the State ticket and take the 

Iowa Feb. 3, 1870 position of elector at our State Convention. 

Nebraska Feb. 17,1870 If this proposition does not meet with your 

Texas Feb. 18,1870 approbation, please return this letter to 

Minnesota Feb. 19,1870 nie. Let me have your reply at an early 

The result of the 1868 election afforded ^^y- ^ ^o most earnestly hope for the 

opportunity for the Republicans to sup- ""/^^ "^ ^^^ Republican party, 
f , „, . TT J -1 ■ 4-1- TT -4- J I am. as ever, your friend, 

plant Thomas A. Hendricks m the United "WILL CUMBACK " 

States Senate, in which body that gentle- 
man had made a record to which his Now, when Mr. Cumback reduced these 

friends and admirers can ever point with thoughts to writing he doubtless assumed 

pj-ide that Governor Baker had become thor- 

Early in the year 1868 there was in oughly imbued with the practical ideas of 

progress a good deal of political maneuver- Governor Morton in regard to adjusting 

ing. Under the established custom of matters of this kind by private arrange- 

political parties an Acting Governor was "^^"*- In assuming this he may have been 

assumed to be entitled to a nomination grievously in error. At any rate it ap- 

»,,»„, ■£ u J ■ J -4- T • 4. peared later on that Governor Baker re- 

fer the full term if he desired it. Lieuten- , , , , ^ , , 

ant-Governor Conrad Baker, upon the warded he Cumback overture or proposi- 

election of Governor Morton to the Senate, ^^f " ^' improper and corrupt. By way 

, A X- ^ Tin.-! • 4-u of variation he branded it as indecent and 

became Acting Governor. While in the 4. „ n x i 

. , . 1 4.. 1 • ji J? 1- J corrupt. But when the convention met, 

mam he enjoyed the kindly feeling and „ 1 j ^ 1 1 -, ■ , 

„ , J. , . 4. 4.1 • • Baker and Cumback were harmoniously 

confidence of his party, there was in evi- , , , ,, u j 4. 4.u 4.- i 4. t, i 

, ,. . ■ J, jr placed at the head of the ticket — Baker 

dence a pronounced sentiment in favor of^_ /-,ui4.t-4- 

1 • ijr-ii n u 1 4-1, T> v.^■^ ^ for Governor, Cumback for Lieutenant- 
making Will Cumback the Republican ml 4. 1 j 4- 4.u • 

. „ ^ TT- -c 11 ■ Governor. The two worked together in 

nominee for Governor. His following was , . . -p 4- r. mi. 

J 4. J 4-1. • 4.- n/r /^ „u «i happy unison, in perfect harmony. Ihe 
ardent and enthusiastic. Mr. Cumback ^^•' ,, .. 4-u4.t>i uu 

, , , u -c o J masses had no suspicion that Baker held 

had been a member of Congress and was , , , ,, ,-4-4-i -, 4. i.- u 

„ , , J -4- T4-- • under lock and key a little document which, 

generally regarded an adroit politician .. _, ,,• u ui r^ u i> 

and an effective stump speaker. Realiz- f. f^^^ P^^hc, would blow Cumback s 

ing that Baker had a cinch on the guber- higher aspirations skyward, 
natorial nomination, Cumback conceived Hendricks' neglect, failure or refusal to 

the idea of driving a shrewd little bargain, resign the Senatorship— thus exemplify- 

While in that frame of mind he took his ^S h's faith in the wisdom and practicabil- 

pen in hand and indited the following it^ of the maxim that a bird in the hand 

letter- ^^ worth a half dozen in the bush — de- 
prived Governor Baker of the opportunity 

(Envelope Marked "Private.") ^^ ^^^^ ^ successor, as Cumback had 

"Greensburgh, Ind., Jan. 6, 1868. fondly anticipated. Indeed, there was no 

"Governor Baker: Dear Friend — If I occasion for Hendricks resigning his seat 

had not a thousand things to demand my j^ the Senate. His term expired March 4, 
attention tnis week, I would come up and j^^ ^ ^ j^^^^^ Governor in 

see you. I v;ill therefore venture to make „,, _,„„„ , , , , . , 

this suggestion : I think Hendricks will October, 1868, he could have resigned on 

be chosen by the Democrats, and he will the day of his inauguration m January 

certainly (if he intends to inspire hope of and then appointed his successor in the 

success among his friends) resign his po- Upper Branch of Congress. There was no 
sition. The person appointed by you will, i-4-- 1 • 4. . -^ ■ 1 j 

other things being equal, stand the best P^l^^ical interest or necessity involved, so 

chance to be chosen by our Legislature, far as the Republicans were concerned. 



18 16-1 

Their majority in the Senate was alto- 
gether too large for the good of the party, 
surely for that of the country. 

Notwithstanding Governor Baker's 
hostility to Major Cumback, the latter 
easily captured the Republican legislative 
caucus nomination for the Senatorship. 
This was immediately followed by an ex- 
plosion. The Cumback letter of January 
6 was made public. Its publication created 
intense excitement throughout the State. 
The exposure became the subject of ani- 
mated discussion in eveiy nook and corner. 
It made the old stagers prick their ears 
and stand aghast. Enough Republican 
legislators had been corralled to prevent 
Cumback's election. These conservators 
of political purity stood solemnly pledged 
to never, no never, vote for Will Cumback 
for United States Senator. Among them 
was State Senator James Hughes of 
Bloomington, a particular friend of Jesse 
D. Bright, and whom the Democrats had 
elected to Congress before the civil war, 
who supported Breckinridge and Lane in 
1860, but who, like Ben Butler and Caleb 
Cashing, became suddenly weaned from 
his pro-Southern proclivities and later on 
fondly embraced Republicanism as the em- 
bodiment of all that could be regarded as 
"good and righteous." 

With his eagle eye intently fixed on the 
Hendricks seat in the Senate at Washing- 
ton, Senator Hughes introduced a resolu- 
tion reciting the corrupting and demoraliz- 
ing contents of the Cumback letter and 
denouncing the gi-aceless methods by and 
through which a seat was sought to be 
secured in the Senate at Washington. 
When, after a protracted and animated 
discussion of the subject, the Legislature 
called for the correspondence between 
Cumback and Baker, the Governor ad- 
dressed a letter to Hon. Stearns Fisher, of 
Wabash, saying it was due to himself that 
some Senator should be informed as to 
the number of letters comprising the en- 
tire correspondence. One from Colonel 
Cumback, dated January 6, 1868; his re- 

ply thereto dated January 8, 1868; one 
from Colonel Cumback dated February 21, 
1868, and his reply dated February 22. 
The Governor asked the Senator to say, 
in the event of the first letter's production, 
that his reply was an indignant rejection 
of the proposition. 

Jesse D. Bright, whom Mr. Hendricks 
succeeded in the Senate, chanced to be 
about Indianapolis just at the time when 
these symptoms of political purity were 
bubbling forth. With charming disinter- 
estedness he circulated among Democratic 
legislators and whispered into their ears: 
"A splendid opportunity is here presented 
to elect a United States Senator. You 
can't re-elect Mr. Hendricks; that is a 
sure case. But you can elect James 
Hughes, who has always been and is now 
at heart a Democrat, and who ought not 
to be proscribed just because he wandered 
away temporarily during the war." This 
was a catchy plea, but strange as may 
appear, it failed to line up the Democratic 
legislators for Hughes. Then some virtu- 
ous political Josephs from the North put 
in an appearance. They were anxious to 
get Judge James S. Frazer of Warsaw 
away from the bench by transferring him 
to the national capital, so that one of these 
protectors of political virtue might be 
made circuit judge. But that neat little 
program didn't pan out, either, so that in 
course of time a new Republican legislative 
caucus was called. Will Cumback's name 
was withdrawn and Daniel D. Pratt of 
Logansport agreed upon as the reunited 
party's choice for the United States Sen- 
atorship. All the Republicans voted for 
Pratt; all the Democrats for Hendricks. 
At the preceding fall election Pratt had 
been chosen a representative in Congress. 
His election to the Senate and his accept- 
ance thereof created a vacancy and 
afforded an opening for some other 
patriot to go to Washington. This favor 
was bestowed upon James N. Tyner of 
Peru, a gentleman whose patriotism and 



self-sacrificing spirit never permitted him 
to let a desirable or lucrative office go 

The campaign of 1868 was ably and en- 
ergetically conducted in Indiana. Much of 
this was due to the vigorous manner in 
which the Sentinel performed its part in 
that memorable contest. April 13, 1868, 
Richard J. Bright, of Madison, took over 
the Indianapolis Herald and restored to 
that publication its former name, the 
Sentinel. He was the son of Michael G. 
Bright and a nephew of Senator Jesse D. 
Bright. Lafe Develin had conducted the 
Herald with signal ability for several 
years. Associated with him were Joseph 
J. Bingham, Geo. C. Harding, John H.- 
Holliday, John Schley, and others. Rich- 
ard Jesse Bright was a fine specimen of 
manhood, a positive character, a devoted 
friend and a fearless opponent. Inability 
to make the Senti7iel profitable caused 
him to dispose of the plant, and some time 
afterward he became sergeant-at-arms of 
the United States Senate, a position he 
held for a number of years. As a Senate 
official he was held in high esteem by 
Democrats and Republicans alike. At this 
writing he is still a resident of Washing- 
ton, D. C. His father was for many years 
among the most influential Democrats of 
Indiana. He was warmly attached to his 
distinguished brother, Jesse D. Bright, 
whom he served and aided in many ways. 
Michael G. Bright had much to do with 
the adjustment of the financial troubles 
in which the State had become involved 
during the grossly misdirected internal 
improvement craze. For several years he 
was the State's financial representative to 
straighten out the kinks that for years so 
greatly impaired the credit of Indiana. He 
was a man of great force of character, a 
Democrat of the stanchest type and a 
citizen highly esteemed by all with whom 
he came in contact. His business quali- 
fications were of a high order. It was 
chiefly due to this that he was chosen to 
disentangle the ensnarled finances of the 

State. His signal success in that under- 
taking attested the wisdom of his selec- 


During the latter part of the 1869 ses- 
sion of the Indiana Legislature the pro- 
posed fifteenth amendment to the Con- 
stitution of the United States was 
submitted to that body for ratification or 
rejection. All the Democratic members of 
both houses were uncompromisingly 
opposed to ratification. When they dis- 
covered that the Republicans, constituting 
the majority, had been lined up in favor of 
ratification, notwithstanding the fact that 
some of them personally doubted the wis- 
dom, justice or advisability of such action, 
the conclusion was reached that resort 
should be taken to breaking a quorum by 
resignation. That their action did not 
accomplish, the desired purpose detracts 
not a whit from the glory that attaches to 
their names as sterling defenders of an 
undefiled electorate. They did all in their 
power to preserve the integrity of the 
ballot. That they failed is not their fault. 
From beginning to end they stood up 
manfully, courageously and patriotically 
for a cause founded upon right and justice. 

Governor Baker officially reported sev- 
enteen members of the Senate and thirty- 
seven members of the House as resigning 
March 4, 1869, during the regular session 
of the Legislature. The Governor there- 
upon called a special election to fill vacan- 
cies, to be held March 23. 

A special session of the Legislature was 
called for April 8, to act on appropriation 
bills and other matters. During this ses- 
sion it was reported that sixteen Senators 
and forty-two members of the House had 
resigned. A. P. Stanton, of Indianapolis, 
resigned as Speaker, being succeeded by 
George A. Buskirk of Bloomington, April 



12. Stanton was not considered equal to 
the emergency, hence his abdication as 
Speaker. The Senate passed the joint 
amendatory resolution May 13 by a vote 
of 27 ayes to 1 nay. Ten Senators were 
shown on the record as being present but 
not voting. 

When the resolution was brought up in 
the House, May 14, John R. Coffroth of 
Huntington raised the point of order that 
two-thirds of the membership were re- 
quired for a quorum. It was reported at 
the special session that sixteen Senators 
and forty-two members of the House re- 
signed. Mr. Coffroth, in raising his point 
of order, said the roll call developed but 
fifty-six members present, which was 
eleven less than a quorum. Speaker Bus- 
kirk held there was no precedent, or law 
of Congress, indicating what should con- 

stitute a quorum on United States Con- 
stitutional questions; he therefore let the 
roll call proceed. The result was announced 
as fifty-four ayes, nays none. 

This, in brief, is the story of the ratifi- 
cation of the fifteenth amendment. The 
action of the Democratic members who 
resigned for the express purpose of break- 
ing a quorum was approved by their 
triumphant re-election. Not the slightest 
doubt existed as to public sentiment in 
Indiana being overwhelmingly opposed to 
this amendment. Yet it was put through 
as a party necessity, unmindful of the note 
of warning sounded by Governor Morton 
in his Richmond speech before he had 
made himself a convert to the dangerous 
and revolutionary program mapped out by 
Thaddeus Stevens and his coadjutors. 



SINCE 1862 

If the Republican leaders really believed 
that the admission of negroes to the ballot, 
under the operation of the fifteenth 
amendment, would have the effect of mak- 
ing more certain Republican ascendency 
in Indiana, they experienced a sore disap- 
pointment in the result of the election 
that year. If, as is quite likely, the negro 
vote was cast solidly for the Republican 
nominees, it became equally apparent that 
for every colored vote added to their num- 
bers a white vote was lost to them. No 
effort was made by the Democrats to 
gather any of the newly enfranchised vot- 
ers into their fold. The Republican party 
as an organization had unequivocally, 
though with poorly disguised misgivings, 
committed itself in favor of the fifteenth 
amendment, while Democrats with the 
utmost unanimity freely and unreservedly 
condemned the arbitrary and revolution- 
ary manner in which the elective franchise 
had been prostituted to base partisan 

The Democratic State convention for 
1870 was held at the State Capital on his- 
toric Jackson Day, and was called to 
order by Lafe Develin, chairman of the 
State Central Committee. The gallant 
Union soldier element was very much in 
evidence and most cordially greeted. 
General Mahlon D. Manson served as tem- 
porary chairman, and upon a hero of two 
wars. General James R. Slack of Hunting- 
ton, was conferred the honor of being 
made permanent chairman. Both of these 
gallant defenders of our country's flag 
delivered speeches that elicited unbounded 
enthusiasm. Their utterances breathed 
the spirit of genuine unionism and devo- 
tion to constitutional supremacy. 

The real contest in the convention was 
over the State auditorship, then by far 
the most lucrative office in the State. Six 
candidates had entered the race: John C. 
Shoemaker, John B. Stoll, Joseph V. 
Bemusdaflfer — Steele, Keightley and Tur- 
ner. On the first ballot Shoemaker had 



1 9 1 

366, Stoll 2981/2, Bemusdaffer 122, Steele 
148, Keightley ""l27. Turner 51. On the 
final ballot Shoemaker had 591, Stoll 502, 
Keightley 6. Upon the announcement of 
the result of the final ballot Mr. Stoll, in a 
brief speech, expressed his entire acqui- 
escence in the decision of the majority, 
followed with the declaration that, though 
not chosen as part of the ticket, he would 
be found in the thickest of the fight for 
the triumphant election of the convention's 
nominees. Tumultuous applause greeted 
this announcement. 

The entire ticket was made up of the fol- 
lowing-named gentlemen : 

Secretary of State — Colonel Norman 
Eddy, South Bend. 

Auditor — John C. Shoemaker, Cannel- 

Treasurer — James B. Ryan, Indiana- 

Attorney-General — Bayless W. Hanna, 
Terre Haute. 

Superintendent of Public Instruction — 
Rev. Milton B. Hopkins, Kokomo. 

Supreme Court Judges — James L. 
Worden, Fort Wayne; Alexander C. 
Downey, Ohio county; Samuel H. Buskirk, 
Bloomington; John Pettit, Lafayette. 

State Central Committee — Eccles G. 
Van Riper, John S. Davis, Floyd; Richard 
D. Slater, Jr., Jefferson; Nathan H. Ray- 
mond, Wayne; E. S. Alvord, Indianapolis, 
Chairman; William M. Mack, Vigo; John 
S. Williams, Tippecanoe; James Sweetzer, 
Grant; John Obison, Delaware; Eli W. 
Brown, Whitley; John P. Early, Laporte. 


The more important planks of the 1870 
platform were set forth in these words : 

"That the Federal Union, with all the 
rights and dignity of the several States, 
should be preserved; and to secure that 
great national blessing the Constitution 
must be respected and observed and every 
approach to centralized despotism de- 
feated, whether attempted by Congress or 
the Executive. 

"That recent events have, more than 

ever, convinced us of the infamous and 
revolutionary character of the reconstruc- 
tion measures of Congress, and we de- 
nounce these measures as an invasion of 
the sovereign and sacred rights of the 
people and all the States. 

"That we are willing to pay our national 
debt, in strict compliance with our con- 
tracts, whether it was made payable in 
gold or greenbacks, but we are unwilling 
to do more than that ; and we declare that 
the five-twenty bonds are payable in 
greenbacks, or their equivalent; and we 
condemn the policy of the Administration 
which is squandering millions of money 
by buying such bonds at a high rate of 
premium, when the Government has the 
clear right to redeem them at par. 

"That we denounce the action of our 
last Legislature in attempting to force 
upon the people the proposed fifteenth 
amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, as in palpable violation of 
our State Constitution, and we solemnly 
protest against Indiana being counted for 
said amendment; and we hereby declare 
our unalterable opposition to its ratifica- 

"That any attempt to regulate the moral 
ideas, appetites, or innocent amusements 
of the people by legislation is unwise and 

Other planks declared in favor of a 
tariff for revenue only and the equal ad- 
justment of the burdens of taxation; for 
the abolition of national banks and the 
substitution of greenbacks as a circulating 
medium; for a larger volume of currency; 
for the taxation of national bank stocks 
for municipal and school purposes ; for the 
taxation of United States bonds for na- 
tional purposes, and against any change in 
the naturalization laws of the United 
States, whereby admission to citizenship 
will be made more difficult or expensive. 

The names of the Republican nominees 
for the various State oflSces will be found 
in the tabular election returns. 

The campaign of 1870 was not an overly 
exciting one. For quite a while but little 
stir was made in the domain of politics. 
By and by demands were made upon the 
State Central Committee that some life be 


injected into affairs political. At a meet- 
ing of the Democratic State Committee a 
resolution was unanimously adopted that 
the speaking campaign be conducted by 
Thomas A. Hendricks, Joseph E. Mc- 
Donald, Thomas Dowling and John B. 
Stoll. A long list of appointments was 
arranged for the latter. His engagements 
dated to October 1, closing in the south- 
western part of the State. Experiencing 
an intense longing to reach his home at 
Ligonier, in the extreme northern part of 
the State, strangely and unaccountably 
depressed mentally and unable to become 
interested in anything brought to his at- 
tention, a messenger sent to meet him at 
the train upon its arrival at Laporte, in 
quivering voice conveyed the crushing in- 
formation: "Your boy died this after- 
noon." "Your boy" meant the dearly 
beloved, exceptionally bright and then only 
son of him to whom this heart-piercing 
message of woe was communicated. All 
attempts at telegraphic information of the 
boy's illness had miscarried. A malignant 
attack of diphtheria prostrated the four- 
year-old lad. Anti-toxin was then un- 
known to medical science; despite all 
efforts to save this precious life, the spirit 
of John B. Stoll, Jr., fled on the afternoon 
of October 3, 1870. Only those who have 
had somewhat similar experiences can 
form any conception of the anguish inci- 
dent to the infliction of such a staggering 
blow. Tender messages of condolence 
came from friends in all parts of the State. 
A singularly sympathetic letter from 
Thomas A. Hendricks, touchingly reciting 
the bereavement that befell himself and 
Mrs. Hendricks in the loss of their only 
child during the early period of their mar- 
ried life, revealed in that great, good, 
lovable statesman a gentleness of nature, 
a nobility of soul, that in a measure 
accounted for the wonderful hold he had 
upon the affection of those who knew him 
best and never tired of doing him honor. 
In a conversation with A. H. Conner, 
chairman of the Republican State Com- 

mittee, the question as to which party 
would carry the State at the October elec- 
tion, Ihe laconic reply was made that if 
the crops turned out favorably and boun- 
tifully, the Republican ticket would doubt- 
less be elected. If crop conditions should 
chance to be unfavorable, Democratic suc- 
cess might safely be foreshadowed. Chair- 
man Conner doubtless became convinced 
later on by an analysis of the situation 
that his prognostication was not alto- 
gether well founded. 

During the progress of the campaign 
emphasis was given to the sentiment that 
gross injustice was being done the tax- 
payers of the State in this, that interest on 
the school fund was made a part of the 
emoluments of the State Auditor, instead 
of being covered into the State treasury 
for the benefit of the school system. No 
law seems to have been enacted specific- 
ally providing for such application, but 
the people were told that if placed in 
power, the Democratic party would see to 
it that justice was done by the enactment 
of appropriate legislation to make school 
fund interest part of the school revenue 
instead of swelling the emoluments of the 
State Auditor. While the Democrats did 
not gain control of the legislative depart- 
ment, they did elect their State ticket. 
Auditor Shoemaker saw fit to continue the 
policy of his predecessors, and it was for 
this reason that he was defeated for re- 
nomination in 1872 by the same person 
who was his chief but unsuccessful com- 
petitor two years before. Mr. Stoll had 
repeatedly declared that he would not be 
a candidate against Mr. Shoemaker if the 
latter as Auditor would cover the school 
fund interest into the State treasury. Mr. 
Shoemaker declined to do this. Influential 
Democrats throughout the State — among 
them such men as "Blue Jeans" Williams, 
General James R. Slack, General Levi 
Sparks, General Reuben C. Kise, Judge J. 
A. S. Mitchell, Judge David S. Gooding, Col- 
onel A. T. Whittlesey, Judge Daniel Noyes, 




Colonel Thomas Dowling, John B. Ruger, 
Judge Sol. Claypool, Martin M. Ray, and 
hundreds of others — insisted that the party 
could not afford to go before the public 
with Mr. Shoemaker as the nominee. They 
conceded that ordinarily Mr. Shoemaker 
was entitled to a renomination under the 
two-term usage, but since he had chosen 
to claim the school fund interest for him- 
self he must suffer the penalty of being 
set aside. A few years later, largely 
through the efforts of James D. Williams, 
elected Governor in 1876, a bill was passed 
by the Legislature requiring the school 
fund interest to be turned over where it 
properly belonged. Considerable effort 
was required to effect this legislation, but 
public sentiment had become so pro- 
nounced on the subject that the taxpaying 
public's influence proved more formidable 
than the suavity of the State Auditor and 
the intercession of his interested friends. 

The Democrats were peculiarly fortu- 
nate in their selection of Colonel Norman 
Eddy to head the ticket for Secretary of 
State. He was a man of high character 
and superior ability. His war record was 
excellent. As a member of Congress he 
stood deservedly high. President Johnson 
appointed him collector of internal reve- 
nue. Colonel Eddy's death before the ex- 
piration of his term as Secretary of State 
created profound sorrow throughout the 

In the election of members of Congress 
the Democrats fared far better than they 
did in preceding elections. William E. 
Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, Wm. S. Hol- 
man and Daniel W. Voorhees were re- 
elected by decisive majorities. They were 
reinforced by General Mahlon D. Hanson, 
who came with flying colors out of the 

contest in the Crawfordsville district. It 
was a great victory for the gallant vet- 
eran and caused genuine elation through- 
out the State. The Republicans re-elected 
General John Coburn, James N. Tyner, 
John Peter Cleaver Shanks, Major William 
Williams and General Jasper Packard, 
and substituted Jeremiah M. Wilson for 
George W. Julian. Wilson "enjoyed" the 
distinction of having slipped into Congress 
by a majority of four. Judge David 
Sanders Gooding gave him a close chase. 
The friends of George W. Julian found it 
diflScult to become reconciled to his forced 


Norman Eddy, Democrat 160,009 2,508 

M. P. A. Hoffman, Republican 157,501 


J. C. Shoemaker, Democrat 159,181 1,867 

.John D. Evans, Republican 157,314 


James B. Ryan, Democrat 158,697 3,223 

Robert H. Milroy, Republican 155,474 


Bayless W. Hanna, Democrat 160,025 2,560 

Nelson Trusler, Republican 157,465 


Milton B. Hopkins, Democrat 159,063 1,994 

Barnabee C. Hobbs, Republican 157,069 


James L. Worden, Democrat 160,002 3,734 

Andrew L. Osborn, Republican 156,268 

Alexander 0. Downey, Democrat. . .159,887 3,798 

John T. Elliott, Republican 156,089 

Samuel H. Buskirk, Democrat 159,853 3,118 

Charles A. Ray, Republican 156,735 

John Pettit, Democrat 159,763 3,077 

Robert C. Gregory, Republican 156,686 


[Chapter XXXIII.] 


IN 1872 


URING the civil war Clement L. 
Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio, 
attained national prominence 
by his outspoken opposition to 
the war policies of the Lincoln 
administration. He had been a 
member of Congress from the 
Dayton district, and on account of some 
of his radical utterances in public speeches 
was exiled to Canada. During this exile 
his ardent friends and supporters insisted 
on his making the race for Governor. He 
was nominated and a vigorous campaign 
was conducted in his behalf. War Dem- 
ocrats and Republicans united on John 
Brough, a life-long Democrat, and elected 
him by something more than 101,000 ma- 
jority. After the war Mr. Vallandigham 
modified his views to such an extent that 
in 1868 he looked with favor upon the 
proposition to make Chief Justice Salmon 
P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury un- 
der Lincoln, the Democratic nominee for 
the Presidency. He progressed so rap- 
idly in his political modernism that on the 
20th of May, 1871, he sprung what be- 
came famous as the "New Departure" at 
the convention of the Montgomery county 
Democracy, held in the city of Dayton. 
This "New Departure" meant the ac- 
ceptance without further opposition of the 
several amendments to the Federal Con- 
stitution and the measures incident to the 
prosecution of the war. It was his con- 
tention that a recession therefrom could 
not be hoped for until the pa.ssions en- 
gendered by the rebellion had subsided 
and after the people's attention had been 
diverted in other directions. The falla- 
ciousness of this expectation has since 

become apparent, but Mr. Vallandigham 
supported his theory with such earnest- 
ness that he not only succeeded in having 
his program approved by his home county, 
but formally endorsed by the Democratic 
State convention at Columbus, June 1, 
1871. Vigorous opposition was put forth 
by Congressman Frank H. Hurd and 
others, but Vallandigham carried the con- 
vention with him by the decisive vote of 
365 yeas to 129 nays. This was followed 
by the nomination of two distinguished 
Union soldiers for Governor and Lieuten- 
ant-Governor — the famous General George 
W. McCook and General Samuel F. Hunt. 
Another stanch supporter of the Union 
cause was nominated for Supreme Judge 
in the person of George W. Geddes. There 
was no half-way course for Vallandigham. 
His "New Departure" was such not only 
in name but in fact. And there isn't the 
slightest doubt about the man's sincerity. 
A new light unfolded itself to his vision 
and it served as his guidance to the end of 
his earthly career, so tragically termi- 
nated while engaged in an important law 
suit by the accidental discharge of a re- 
volver in his own hand. He was a very 
able man, and men of rare ability at times 
take queer turns in political as well as in 
other affairs. Vallandigham was not alone 
among Ohio's distinguished politicians to 
change front suddenly. 

A conspicuous example was that of 
George H. Pendleton's flop from hard 
money to greenbackism. As a member of 
Congress during the early period of the 
war he vigorously opposed the issue of 
greenbacks as legal tender currency. In 
assuming this attitude he had the dis- 



linguished fellowship of Roscoe Conkling 
of New York. In 1868 the same George 
H. Pendleton became a candidate for the 
presidential nomination as a distinctive 
champion of the proposition to pay off 
with greenbacks all the obligations of the 
United States not specifically provided to 
be paid in coin. 

The first movement in the direction of 
organized opposition to the re-election of 
General Grant to the presidency was 
originated in Missouri in 1870 under the 
leadership of Senator Carl Schurz, aided 
by others of considerable prominence in 
the Republican party. A ticket headed by 
B. Gratz Brown for Governor was placed 
in nomination and triumphantly elected 
in the fall. In response to the Missouri 
movement the Democracy of Ohio came 
to the front with the "New Departure" in 
1871, and at the State convention held in 
Cleveland, June 27, 1872, acquiesced in 
the program set forth at a mass meeting 
held in Cincinnati May 1st of the same 
year by the Liberal Republicans. The new 
movement had by this time gained large 
accessions and gave high promise of prov- 
ing a success. So many Republicans of 
prominence had enlisted in it that it as- 
sumed the character of a political revo- 
lution. Carl Schurz, Horace Greeley, Reu- 
ben E. Fenton, Governor Andrew G. Cur- 
tin, Governor Austin Blair, Lyman Trum- 
bull, James R. Doolittle, George W. Julian, 
B. Gratz Brown, Salmon P. Chase, John D. 
Defrees, Stanley Matthews, Col. A. K. 
McCIure and hundreds of others of almost 
equal prominence and distinction had 
identified themselves with the new organi- 
zation and gave it their earnest and en- 
thusiastic support. Abuses had sprung 
up under the Grant administration that 
afforded ample ground and justification for 
revolt. The whisky frauds in the West 
and other transgressions had become na- 
tional scandals. While Grant's personal 
integrity was not questioned, thousands of 
those who had voted for him in 1868 ex- 

pressed emphatic refusal to do so again. 
His administration was adjudged a stu- 
pendous failure and a grievous disappoint- 
ment. Its defeat was confidently expected 
and as confidently predicted until the elec- 
tion in North Carolina in the month of 
August suddenly put a damper on the 
hopes and expectations of the leaders of 
the new party. 

The nomination of Horace Greeley for 
the Presidency had a depressing effect on 
the real leader of the Liberal Republican 
movement. Senator Carl Schurz. Not that 
he in any sense disliked or distrusted 
Greeley, but that he had serious doubts 
as to his being a real representative of 
the spirit that caused this upheaval. The 
convention that nominated Greeley and 
Brown was held in Cincinnati. Senator 
Schurz was the guest of his friend and 
admirer. Judge John B. Stallo, one of Cin- 
cinnati's most highly esteemed citizens. 
Upon Greeley's nomination by the close 
vote of 332 to 324 for Charles Francis 
Adams, Senator Schurz repaired to the 
Stallo mansion. Seating himself at the 
grand piano, Schurz, an accomplished 
manipulator of the ivory keys, rendered 
from "The Bohemian Girl" the melancholy 
strains of "The Heart Bowed Down." 
More pathetically than spoken words these 
plaintive strains revealed the mournful 
feelings of the chagrined and sorely dis- 
appointed chairman of the first and last 
national convention of the newly-born 
Liberal Republican party. 

Schurz's heart had been set on the nom- 
ination of the scholarly but austere 
Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts. 
The delegates who inclined to the ideal- 
istic in politics heartily seconded Senator 
Schurz's efforts to secure Mr. Adams's 
nomination. The "practical politicians" 
and political manipulators strangely co- 
operated with General Frank P. Blair of 
Misi^ouri, in a carefully-planned move- 
ment to make the ticket consist of Horace 
Greeley and B. Gratz Brown. The men 
who had most accurately sized up the sit- 



uation in the country at large had fully 
satisfied themselves that the proper, the 
wise, thing to do was to nominate Judge 
David Davis, of Illinois, Lincoln's executor 
and devoted friend. Davis had already 
been nominated by a sort of Labor Con- 
vention, with Governor Joel Parker of 
New Jersey as his running mate. It was 
an excellent combination. Both were men 
of unblemished character and the business 
element had entire confidence in them. 
Had this ticket been accepted by the Cin- 
cinnati convention and subsequently ap- 
proved by the Baltimore convention, there 
is but little doubt that it would have been 
triumphantly elected. The country was 
genuinely tired of the manner in which af- 
fairs were being conducted by the Grant 
administration, but it was not prepared or 
inclined to place in the presidential chair 
a brainy man eminently qualified to edit 
a great newspaper but temperamentally 
and otherwise manifestly unfitted to run 
the governmental machinery of a great in- 
dustrial country like ours. There never 
could be any question as to Greeley's hon- 
esty and integrity, nor the excellence and 
purity of his intentions and purposes. But 
his nearest and dearest friends could not 
divest themselves of apprehension that his 
occupancy of the presidential office would 
have resulted in humiliation to himself 
and chagrin to his friends. Great in some 
things. Grant was a dismal failure in 
these respects, but he had elements of 
strengtl; that were conspicuously wanting 
in America's foremost journalist — the re- 
vered sage of Chappauqua. 

The Democracy of Indiana bore a con- 
spicuous part in the final acceptance of 
the Greeley and Brown Liberal Republican 
ticket. Up to the time that Indiana for- 
mally declared itself there was lingering 
in the Democratic mind considerable 
doubt as to the advisability of forming a 
coalition -with the Liberal Republicans. 
There were many who believed that a 
presidential ticket headed by Thomas A. 

Hendricks could and would be elected. 
With a view to simplifying matters the 
State Central Committee was convened at 
Indianapolis, January 9, 1872, to discuss 
the situation and agree upon some plan of 
action. Representative Democrats from all 
parts of the State were invited to attend 
this meeting and give the committee the 
benefit of their views. Among those who 
responded to this invitation were S. W. 
Holmes, J. B. Edmunds, Joseph E. Mc- 
Donald, John S. Williams, W. S. Shirely, 
Colonel Taylor, Wm. Mack, Bayless W. 
Hanna, Daniel W. Voorhees, Thomas A. 
Hendricks and Captain John Kirk. In 
their talks these gentlemen referred with 
mai'ked satisfaction to the prevailing 
spirit of harmony and unity of purpose. 
The sentiment expressed was unequivoc- 
ally in favor of maintaining the organi- 
zation and nominating a presidential can- 
didate who had the confidence of the party 
and whose fitness would be so evident that 
he could command the respect of political 
opponents and the support of all who de- 
sired the restoration of honesty and purity 
in the administration of the Government. 
The proposal of the State Central Com- 
mittee that the State convention be post- 
poned until June met with genei-al favor 
and final approval. 

The convention met at Indianapolis, 
June 12, after both the Liberal and the 
regular Republican presidential conven- 
tions had been held. Sixteen hundred dele- 
gates and a goodly number of specators 
were in attendance. State Chairman 
Elijah S. Alvord called the convention to 
order. John R. Coffroth was chosen per- 
manent chairman. By far the most im- 
portant business for the transaction of 
which the convention had been called was 
practically though not formally di.sposed 
of the night before. Up to the last moment 
Mr. Hendricks had w^ithheld his consent 
to make another race for the Governor- 
ship. He had already made two such races 
and gave it as his opinion that he had fully 


discharged his duty in that particular. Mr. DePauw declined the nomination 

Mrs. Hendricks was very much averse to for Lieutenant-Governor. ■ The State Com- 

her distinguished husband making a third mittee selected John R. Cravens, a Liberal 

race for that office. It was an open secret Republican, of Madison, and a gentleman 

that she expected Mr. Hendricks to be of high character, to fill the vacancy, 

nominated for the Presidency. When it Daniel W. Voorhees was intensely hos- 

had been made apparent that Indiana was tile to the adoption by the Democrats of 

inseparably linked with the Greeley the Greeley nomination. It was feared 

movement Mrs. Hendricks finally relented, that if he could not be restrained from 

A decided majority of the district addressing the convention a row could not 

caucuses held the night before the conven- have been averted. But the "Tall Syca- 

tion settled the party's attitude as to the more" finally permitted himself to be pla- 

Presidential nomination. In the event that cated to forego a forensic onslaught on 

Mr. Hendricks had been entered in the the amalgamation scheme. He predicted, 

Presidential race it is altogether probable however, that nothing but disastrous 

that Washington C. DePauw, of New Al- defeat could and would result from this 

bany, would have been made the nominee unnatural alliance. And so it turned out 

for Governor. There was a very pro- when in the melancholy days of November 

nounced sentiment in his favor. This was the popular verdict was rendered. After 

made manifest by the enthusiastic man- the adoption of the report of the com- 

ner in which he was named for second mittee on resolutions the Presidential 

place on the ticket. The fight over the Question virtually was settled. Joseph E. 

auditorship was kept up nearly all night. McDonald, H. W. Harrington, and Judge 

Strong efi^orts were made to induce Mr. ^^bert Lowry were the principal spokes- 

Stoll to accept a place on the ticket either "?^^ ^^^ the Greeley cause m the conven- 

for Secretary of State or Congressman- tion proper. 

at-large, so that Mr. Shoemaker might be PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, 
renominated with the other gentlemen 

chosen in 1870. The feeling had, how- The electoral ticket was made up one- 

ever, grown so intense that an adjustment half of Democrats and one-half Liberal 

had ceased to be within the range of pos- Republicans: 

sibilities. The ballot resulted in 817 votes lor the State at Larg^George W. Julian, 

being cast for John B. Stoll and 773 for J"''" ^- Coffroth, Cyrus M. Allen and James 

John C. Shoemaker. The ticket in its en- ^ ^ktrict Electors-John G. Shanklin, James A. 

tirety was composed of the following Cravens, John S. Scobey, James T. Hockman, Wil- 

named gentlemen: liam R. Harrison, William R. McLean, ' Thomas 

Governor— Thomas A. Hendricks, Indianapolis. H. Harrison, Jolin W. Evans, James Brown, Mile 

Lieutenant-Governor— Washin^on C. DePauw, S. Hascall and William W. Higgins. 


Congressmen for the State at Large — Col. John 

S. Williams of Lafayette and Michael C. Kerr of At Large — Martin. M. Ray, Marion; James D. 

New Albany. Williams, Knox; Robert Lowry, Allen; Bayless 

Secretary of State— O. M. Eddy, South Bend. W. Hanna, Vigo. Contingents— Judge D. D. 

State Auditor— John B. Stoll, Ligonier. Dykeman, Cass; Dr. G. W. McConnell, Steuben; 

State Treasurer— James B. Ryan, Indianapolis. Levi Sparks, Clark; Horace Corbin, Marshall. 

Superintendent Public Instruction— Milton B. nrcTPTrT mrr irr atfq 


Attorney-General— B. W. Hanna, Terra Haute. A. T. Whittlesey Vanderburg 

Clerk Supreme Court— Edward Price, Sullivan. Michael Murphy Daviess 

Reporter Supreme Court — John C. Robinson, August Bradley Floyd 

Spencer. Clement Doane Crawford 


H. W. Hairincton Jefferson 

R. D. Sinter, Jr Dearborn 

Alonzo Blair Shelby 

W. H. Beck Fayette 

Benjamin C. Shaw Marion 

Thomas W. Woollen Johnson 

Thomas Dowlinp: Vig-o 

James W. Cookerly Monroe 

John B. Pvuser Tippecanoe 

Leander McClurg- Clinton 

George D. Tate Howard 

William Steele, Sr Wabash 

William Taiishinhaufrh Blackford 

Samuel Thanhauser Allen 

J. A. S. Mitchell Elkhart 

J. R. Lanning: DeKalb 

Dr. L. J. Ham St. Joseph 

Dr. F. B. Thomas Pulaski 


1. E. S. Alvord, Indianapolis, Chairman. 

2. John H. O'Neal, Daviess county. 

3. John S. Davis, Floyd. 

4. Thomas J. Riley. Jennings. 

5. Finley Bigger, Rush. 

6. Eb. Henderson, Morgan. 

7. Colonel Thomas Dowling, Vigo. 

8. A. D. Lemon, Lawrence. 

9. F. E. D. McGinley, Tippecanoe. 

10. James M. Sweetzer, Grant. 

11. William Fleming, Allen. 

12. Eli W. Brown, Whitley. 

13. Piatt McDonald, Marshall. 


After Indiana's Democracy had de- 
clared in convention that Greeley and 
Brown should also be made the nominees 
of the National Democracy, all doubt van- 
ished as to the outcome of the Baltimore 
convention, fixed to be held July 9. Sen- 
ator James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, was 
made permanent chairman. The platform 
adopted at Cincinnati by the Liberal Re- 
publicans was accepted without change, 
alteration or modification, although Sen- 
ator Thomas Francis Bayard, of Dela- 
ware, opposed it vigorously. The vote 
stood 670 for, 62 against its adoption. The 
vote for Presidential candidates was : 
Horace Greeley, 686; Jeremiah S. Black, 
Pennsylvania, 21 ; Thomas Francis Bay- 
ard, Delaware, 16; William S. Groesbeck, 
Ohio, 2 ; blank, 7. 

B. Gratz Brown was nominated for 
Vice-President by an almost unanimous 

A so-called straight-out Democratic 
ticket was subsequently nominated, com- 
posed of Charles O'Conor, of New York, 
for President and John Quincy Adams, of 
Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The 
ticket was made up of two eminent men, 
but it cut very little figure in the cam- 
paign or at the election. The State ticket, 
however, served its purpose in Indiana by 
way of diverting just about enough votes 
from the regular Democratic nominees to 
insure the election of most of the Republi- 
can candidates. The so-called straight-out 
Democratic ticket polled altogether from 
131 to 221 votes in the entire State. The 
result of the October election was so close 
that the exact outcome as to Secretary 
and Auditor of State was not finally set- 
tled until a week after the election. 

It will be noticed that James B. Ryan 
made his fourth race for State Treasurer 
in this campaign. He was first nominated 
in 186G, then in 1868, 1870, 1872. Three 
of his races were unsuccessful ; the one 
made in 1870 was crowned with success. 
Mr. Ryan was one of the cleverest of men 
in the State. Everybody who knew him 
liked Jim Ryan. He was an honored resi- 
dent of Indianapolis and engaged in the 
wholesale liquor business, which in those 
days was not under the ban as it is today. 

FORM, 1872. 

"We, the Democratic electors of the 
United States, in convention a.s.sembled, 
do pre.'^ent the following principles, al- 
ready adopted at Cincinnati (by the Lib- 
eral Republicans), as essential to just gov- 

"We, the Liberal Republicans pro- 
claim the following principles as essentia] 

to just government The equality of 

all men before the law The union 

of the States, emancipation and enfran- 
chisement, and to oppose any re-opening 



of the questions settled by the 13th, 14th, 
and 15th Amendments The im- 
mediate and absolute removal of all dis- 
abilities imposed on account of the Rebel- 
lion Local self-government, with 

.impartial suffrage, will guard the rights 
of all citizens more securely than any cen- 
tralized power The supremacy of 

the civil power The civil service.. . 

a mere instrument of partisan tyranny. . 
is a scandal and reproach upon free insti- 
tutions No President shall be a 

candidate for re-election A system 

of Federal taxation which shall not un- 
necessarily interfere with the industry of 
the people We denounce repudia- 
tion in every form and guise Speedy 

return to specie payment is demanded. . . . 
We remember with gratitude the heroism 
and sacrifices of the soldiers and sailors. . . 
We are opposed to all further grants of 
lands to railroads or other corporations.. . 
It is the duty of the Government, in its 
intercourse with foreign nations, to culti- 
vate the friendships of peace . . . . " 

Thomas A. Hendricks, Democrat. .189,424 
Thomas ivi. Browne, Republican . . . 188,276 



John R. Cravens, Democrat. 
Leonidas Sexton, Republican 


Owen M. Eddy, Democrat 188,668 

W. W. Curry, Republican 188,852 

John B. Stoll, Democrat 188,546 

James F. Wildman, Republican 188,821 


James B. Ryan, Democrat. . 
John B. Glover, Republican. 



Bayless W. Hanna, Democrat 188 360 

James C. Denny, Republican 189,004 644 


Milton B. Hopkins, Democrat 189,194 957 

Smith, Republican 188,237 


Edward F. Price, Democrat. 
Chas. Scholl. Republican 

.189,357 1,503 


John C. Robinson, Democrat 188,464 

James B. Black, Republican 188,891 427 


Michael C. Kerr, Democrat 188,502 

John S. Williams, Democrat 188,227 

Godlove S. Orth, Republican 188.664 162 

William Williams, Republican 188,760 258 

In the election of members of Congress 
the Democrats fared badly. Thirteen rep- 
resentatives were chosen, two of them by 
the State at large. These were Godlove 
S. Orth, of LaFayette, and William Wil- 
liams, of Warsaw. The three Democrats 
chosen were William E. Niblack, Simeon 
K. Wolf, and William S. Holman, respect- 
ively, from the first, second and third dis- 
tricts. The re-elected Republicans were 
Jeremiah M. Wilson, John Cobum, James 
N. Tyner, John Peter Cleaver Shanks, and 
Jasper Packard. Morton C. Hunter de- 
feated Daniel W. Voorhees in the Terre 
Haute district and Thomas J. Cason "got 
away" with General Mahlon D. Manson in 
the Crawfordsville district. Huntington 
county having been gerrymandered into 
the tenth district, Henry B. Sayler, a 
Huntington lawyer and glib stump 
speaker, was nominated and elected by the 
Republicans. The next Legislature took 
Huntington out of the tenth, and Sayler 
was put off with a single term. Later 
on he was made a circuit judge, serving a 
number of years. 

It will be observed by scanning the fore- 
going tabular statement that of the can- 
didates on the Democratic ticket Mr. 
Hendricks and Mr. Hopkins alone were 
elected and the remainder defeated by 
majorities ranging from 184 to 1503. 
When genial Thomas M. Browne was by 
the Republicans nominated for Governor 
he pledged himself in his acceptance 
speech that he would thenceforth cease to 
offend his brother by eating meat — that 
is to say, he would no longer indulge in 
strong drink. Tom Browne seemingly for- 
got this promise during the progress of 



18 16-1916 

the campaign, so several hundred pro- 
nounced temperance Republicans rebuked 
his transgression on election day by voting 
for Mr. Hendricks. "Bishop" Hopkins was 
re-elected partly by the favor of Repub- 
lican school teachers and partly by being 
made the beneficiary of the favor of the 
Christian (Campbellite) church of w^hich 
he was a conspicuous and deservedly hon- 
ored elder. 

The campaign of 1872 was in several re- 
spects one of the most unique in the his- 
tory of the Republic. For years Horace 
Greeley lambasted the Democrats as no 
other journalist ventured or thought of 
doing. Big-brained and big-hearted as he 
was, he criticised and denounced them in 
unmeasured terms when campaigns 
reached fever heat. He was an ultra pro- 
tectionist, an uncompromising foe o£ 
slavery, a faddist in some particulars, and 
vehemently opposed to the use of alcoholic 
liquors as a beverage. At the beginning 
of the war he blandly told the Southern 
States that wanted to secede : "Wayward 
sisters, depart in peace." In some of his 
vehement anti-slavery outbursts he was 
not much at variance with those extrem- 
ists who referred to the Stars and Stripes 
as a "flaunting lie." Angered at General 
George B. McClellan's slowness in driving 
the rebels southward, he greatly annoyed 
President Lincoln by printing from day 
to day in his Netv York Tribune, in black 
type the imperious command. "On to Rich- 
mond !" After the collapse of the rebellion 
he startled and embittered many of his 
Republican brethren by joining Gerritt 
Smith, Cornelius Vanderbilt and a num- 
ber of others in going on Jeff Davis's bail 
bond, guaranteeing the rebel chieftain's 
appearance before a proper tribunal when 
he was to be tried for treason — which, by 
the way, never happened, for reasons that 
no one better comprehended than Abra- 
ham Lincoln. Naturally these incidents 
and episodes in the career of the foremost 
American journalist were used for all 

there was in them, and more too. Repub- 
licans who favored Greeley were not dis- 
turbed by any of the attacks made upon 
the white-coated philosopher by the sup- 
porters of Grant. Hence more attention 
was bestowed upon disaff'ected Democrats 
than upon Liberal Republicans. When 
the Grantites couldn't think of anything 
else wherewith to excite Democratic in- 
dignation they would resort to the rasping 
taunt: "Of course you'll vote, work and 
shout for Greeley if for no other reason 
than that he once upon a time declared 
that while it doubtless was true that not 
all Democrats are horse-thieves, it was 
equally true that all horse-thieves are 
Democrats." This biting obsers'ation was 
one day made to an ardent Democrat of 
Irish extraction. Instead of boiling over 
with rage and indignation the level-headed 
Irishman complacently replied: "Begorra, 
we Democrats said some mighty mean 
things about old Horace. If he said meaner 
things about us than we said about him, 
he is welcome to it." 

Democrats took delight in reminding 
Republican newspaper men who were es- 
pecially severe in belaboring Greeley that 
they were stung by the sage and philoso- 
pher when he referred to his critics as 
"little creatures whom kind Providence 
for some inscrutable purpose permits to 
edit the county printing." That usually 
put a quietus on the ofl'ending county 

It stood very much to the credit of the 
Democrats that taunts and jibes did not 
swerve them from the path of duty. While 
Horace Greeley had attained the height of 
intellectual greatness he was by no means 
free of human frailty. He had his .short- 
comings, foibles and frills; he was 
irascible and on occasion swore like a 
trooper. But he was as honest and sincere 
as the days were long. He was pre-emi- 
nently a humanitarian. His desire and 
longing ran unswervingly in the direction 
of human happiness — not for the favored 



few but for all really deserving of such 
beneficence and capable of appreciating 
the same. Pronounced and ultra in his 
views on some questions, he was prone to 
indulge in severity of phraseology. That, 
of course, gave his writings wider circu- 
lation and made him the subject of cor- 
responding criticism. 

When the rebellion was crushed and the 
war ended Greeley wanted peace, fra- 
ternity, pacification and restoration. He 
was too big a man, too large-hearted to 
countenance petty tyranny or the inflic- 
tion of widespread punishment upon 
those who for one reason or another 
joined in ill-advised rebellion against the 
authority of the Government. Eager that 
the wounds inflicted by four years of 
carnage be healed as speedily as possible, 
Mr. Greeley went to Richmond, Va., to 
stand good for Jeff Davis's appearance to 
answer to the charge of high treason. The 
popular interpretation of this generous 
and patriotic action on the part of Mr. 
Greeley was that he went to Richmond to 
release from imprisonment and set free 
the fallen chief of the collapsed Southern 
Confederacy. The fact that Gerritt Smith, 
a life-long champion of the anti-slavery 
cause, was associated with Mr. Greeley 
and others in this pacificatory mission was 
conveniently ignored and all the censure 
heaped upon the head of the famous 
Tribune editor. The Union League Club 
of New York, of which Mr. Greeley was 
a prominent member, took it upon itself 
to cite that gentleman to appear before 
it and explain and defend his signing of 
the Jeff Davis bail bond. In a letter such 
as Horace Greeley alone could write he 
flatly refused to put in the requested ap- 
pearance and so blistered the officials of 
the club with his scathing denunciation of 
their narrowness of vision that on the 
heels of the receipt of the Greeley philip- 
pic a resolution was introduced and 
adopted that there had been nothing "in 
the action of Horace Greeley, relative to 

the bailing of Jeft'erson Davis, calling for 
proceedings in this club." The latter part 
of Mr. Greeley's reply to the Union League 
Club's ill-advised summons is such a vig- 
orous assertion of manly independence 
and such a stinging rebuke to organized 
affrontery and arrogance that it richly 
merits a place in the pages of this work. 
It is therefore herewith reproduced for 
thoughtful perusal: 

"Gentlemen, I shall not attend your 
meeting this evening. I have an engage- 
ment out of town, and shall keep it. I do 
not recognize you as capable of judging, 
or even fully apprehending me. You evi- 
dently regard me as a weak sentimental- 
ist, misled by a maudlin philosophy. I ar- 
raign you as narrow-minded blockheads, 
who wouJd like to be useful to a great and 
good cause, but don't know how. Your at- 
tempt to base a great, enduring party on 
the hate and wrath necessarily engendered 
by a bloody civil war, is as though you 
should plant a colony on an iceberg which 
had somehow drifted into a tropical ocean. 
I tell you here, that, out of a life earn- 
estly devoted to the good of human kind, 
your children will select my going to Rich- 
mond and signing that bail-bond as the 
wisest act, and will feel that it did more 
for freedom and humanity than all of you 
were competent to do, though you had 
lived to the age of Methuselah. 

"I ask nothing of you, then, but that 
you proceed to your end by a direct, frank, 
manly way. Don't sidle off into a mild 
resolution of censure, but move the expul- 
sion which you proposed, and which I de- 
serve, if I deserve any reproach whatever. 
All I care for is, that you make a square, 
stand-up fight, and record your judgment 
by yeas and nays. I care not how few 
vote with me, nor how many vote against 
me ; for I know that the latter will repent 
it in dust and ashes before three 
years have passed. Understand, once for 
all, that T dare you and defy you, and 
that I propose to fight it out on the line 
that I have held from the day of Lee's sur- 
render. So long as any man was seeking 
to overthrow our Government, he was my 
enemy; from the hour in which he laid 
down his arms, he was my formerly er- 
ring countryman. So long as any is at 
heart opposed to the national unity, the 
Federal authority, or to that assertion of 


the equal i-ights of all men which has be- 
come practically identified with loyalty 
and nationalitj', I shall do my best to de- 
prive him of power; but, whenever he 
ceases to be thus, I demand his restoration 
to all the privileges of American citizen- 
ship. I give you fair notice, that I shall 
urge the re-enfranchisement of those now 
proscribed for rebellion so soon as I shall 
feel confident that this course is consistent 
with the freedom of the blacks and the 
unity of the Republic, and that I shall de- 
mand a recall of all now in exile only for 
participating in the Rebellion, whenever 
the country shall have been so thoroughly 
pacified that its safety will not thereby 
be endangered. And so, gentlemen, hoping 
that yon will henceforth comprehend me 
somewhat better than you have done, I 
remain, yours, 

"New York, May 23, 1867." 

It was the patient and earnest study of 
Mr. Greeley's voluminous editorials on the 
subject of establishing on a firm basis gen- 
uinely amicable relations between North 
and South that so warmed the Democratic 
heart in all parts of the Union to the "Sage 
of Chappauqua," the illustrious Tribune 
journalist and philosopher. These edito- 
rials breathed a spirit of such lofty patri- 
otism, such nobility of thought and pur- 
pose, that animosity and vindictive recol- 
lection of attack, criticism and virulence 
in former years were efl'ectually banished, 
extingui.«hed and obliterated. This is the 
real solution of the problem how the great 
Democratic heart became attached to 
Horace Greeley and why he was so earn- 
estly supported in his candidacy for the 
Presidency under circumstances that gave 
so little assurance of success at the final 

Of the popular vote Grant polled 3,597,- 
070, Greeley 2,834,079, O'Conor 29,408 out 
of a total of 6,466,165. Indiana gave Grant 
186,147, Greeley 163,632, O'Conor 1,417. 
Mr. Greeley died soon after the election 
of a broken heart and before the meeting 
of the electoral college. The minority 
electors who had been chosen for Greeley 

and Brown were entirely at sea as to who 
should receive their votes. As McClure 
says, "There were many quibbles raised in 
the joint convention of the two houses in 
counting and declaring the vote. Senator 
Hoar, of Massachusetts, objected to the 
Georgia votes cast for Greeley because he 
was dead at the time, and various other 
technical objections were made," but as 
the vote was accepted it shows 286 for 
Grant, 42 for Hendricks, 18 for B. Gratz 
Brown, 2 for Charles J. Jenkins, and 1 
for David Davis. For Vice-President 
Henry Wilson is credited with 286, B. 
Gratz Brown with 47; scattering, 19. 



Upon the adjournment of the Demo- 
cratic State convention in 1872 great con- 
fidence was felt in the outcome of the cam- 
paign. Politicians of large and varied ex- 
perience thought that with Greeley at the 
head of the National ticket and Hendricks 
at the head of the State ticket Indiana 
would be carried by at least 25,000 ma- 
jority. That buoyant feeling prevailed un- 
til after the unexpected and unlooked for 
result of the North Carolina election in 
the month of August. The sagacious 
leaders began to realize that they had a 
job on their hands. Able speakers were 
brought into the State; genuine activity 
became apparent at headquarters. Re- 
newed energv^ was injected into the cam- 
paign. The managers were elated over the 
announcem.ent that Carl Schurz had con- 
sented to come into the State and deliver 
a series of speeches. I first met Senator 
Schurz at Indianapolis. He made earne.'^t 
inquiry as to the condition of affairs, the 
pro-spects, points of weakness, etc. He was 
very much put out over the disarranging 
of his plans at Terre Haute, where he 
intended to speak in German. Simply be- 
cause the campaign managers were de- 
sirous of hearing him in their own lan- 
guage he was finally induced to speak in 


19 16 

English. The meeting was a great suc- 
cess as to attendance and enthusiasm. But 
Mr. Schurz felt that if he had been per- 
mitted to speak in German he could have 
made at least two votes where he pos- 
sibly made one. Similar experiences were 
had in other localities. It was quite natural 
that those actively enlisted in the cause 
were eager to listen to Mr. Schurz in the 
language they could understand. His rep- 
utation as a public speaker and philosoph- 
ical reasoner heightened this eagerness. 
He was a wonderfully forceful, logical and 
convincing speaker. It was a rare treat, 
a genuine pleasure, to listen to him. There 
was no rant, no demagogy, no sophistry in 
his addresses. Loftiness of sentiment and 
richness of thought permeated his utter- 
ances, fairly charming those who closely 
followed his argumentation. In company 
with Judge J. A. S. Mitchell, of Goshen, 
I attended one of the Schurz meetings, at 
Laportc. It was held in Patton's grove 
and presided over by one of Greeley's 
stanchest Republican supporters. Judge 
John B. Niles, a Quaker and a highly es- 
teemed citizen of the old school. I was 
at that time part owner and publisher of 
the Laporte Argus, though a resident of 
Ligonier. By request of both Liberal Re- 
publicans and Democrats I formally in- 
vited Judge Niles to officiate as presiding 
officer of the meeting. He was asked to 
go to the grove in a conveyance with the 
committee, but said he preferred to walk 
and thus be afforded opportunity to for- 
mulate mentally some remarks he wanted 
to make in introducing Senator Schurz. 
And what a gem the venerable jurist had 
formulated for the occasion ! That it was 
extraordinary in point of literary and ora- 
torical excellence was the general com- 
ment of those best qualified to pass judg- 
ment on such matters. Judge Mitchell said 
he never heard anything quite equal to 
it. Mr. Schurz told me that in all his cam- 
paigning he had nowhere been so happily 
and felicitously introduced to a popular 

audience as he was on this occasion. 
Schurz's speech was a masterpiece. It 
made a wonderful impression upon the 
large, intelligent and deeply interested 
audience. The German element was 
largely represented. At the close of the 
address an urgent appeal was made that 
Mr. Schurz make a few remarks in Ger- 
man. He was reluctant about doing this, 
having already spoken an hour and a half. 
I begged of him to gratify these insistent 
pleaders, and he finally did. The effect 
was marvelous. Joy united with pride; 
supreme happiness was depicted upon 
every Germanic countenance. His well- 
chosen sentences seemed to reach the in- 
nermost recesses of every German soul in 
that beautiful grove. This incident illus- 
trated more strikingly than words could 
have done the force of Mr. Schurz's 
grievance over the Terre Haute affair. I 
fully comprehended the importance Mr. 
Schurz attached to addressing people in 
their native tongue. And what was the 
effect of this little diversion at Laporte? 
Well, if one-half of the counties in the 
State had done as well as Laporte did 
there would have been no question about 
Indiana rolling up much more than the 
conjectured and predicted 25,000 ma- 

A few years later I again met Senator 
Schurz — this time at Goshen, where he 
delivered a lecture to a delighted audience. 
It was my good fortune to be with him 
the greater part of his stay at Goshen. 
That was during the winter of 1875-6. I 
was anxious to know how he felt with 
reference to the next Presidential contest. 
He was reluctant about committing him- 
self, but said if he had his way he would 
make the 1876 campaign a centennial af- 
fair. Delicately I alluded to Samuel J. 
Tilden as being worthy of that distinc- 
tion. To this there was neither assent nor 

I feel that most if not all of the readers 
of this book will feel deeply interested in 


the incident hereinafter related. It per- 
tains to an experience in the life of Gen- 
eral Schurz that I wouldn't undertake to 
explain even if I deemed myself compe- 
tent so to do, which assuredly is not the 
case. If the statement that follows em- 
anated from any other source I would be 
reluctant about giving it credence. Com- 
ing, as it does, from General Schurz him- 
self, I have not the slightest doubt as to 
its absolute truthfulness and accuracy. 

President Johnson's proclamation con- 
cerning the reconstruction of North Caro- 
lina so interested General Schurz that he 
wrote a letter of remonstrance to the 
President. The latter in reply summoned 
General Schurz by telegraph to Washing- 
ton for conference. Impressed with the 
importance of his mission, but entirely 
ignorant of President Johnson's plans with 
regard to the matter, he resolved to re- 
spond immediately and left his temporary 
home at Bethlehem, Pa., on the next day, 
intending to take the midnight train from 
Philadelphia for Washington. He stopped 
for the evening at the home of Dr. Tiede- 
mann of Philadelphia. This gentleman was 
a friend to whom he was bound by ties of 
friendship and close association during 
the revolutionary period of "storm and 
stress" in Germany. Dr. Tiedemann was 
the son of a Heidelberg professor. Mrs. 
Tiedemann was a sister of Colonel Fried- 
rich Hecker, the well-known revolutionist 
from Germany, who served with distinc- 
tion as an officer of the Union forces. Dr. 
Tiedemann and his wife had lost two ex- 
ceptionally bright and promising sons in 
the war, and the wife, a woman of superior 
intellect and good judgment, had through 
some spiritualistic friends been led to seek 
communication with her sons in the spirit 
land. So satisfactory had been this at- 
tempt for herself that Dr. Tiedemann, 
himself a profound thinker and a man well 
versed in sound world philosophy, began 
to take a sentimental interest in the 

seances by which Mrs. Tiedemann was 
receiving such comforting messages from 
her departed sons. Dr. Tiedemann had 
indulgently permitted such seances at his 
own home, and it happened that arrange- 
ments had been made for such a meeting 
which was to be held on the very night 
that brought General Schurz as a guest. 

The medium on this occasion was a 
fifteen-year-old daughter of the Tiede- 
mann's, described by General Schurz as an 
"uncommonly beautiful, intelligent and 
high-spirited girl of fifteen," who had 
shown remarkable qualities as a writing 
medium. On this evening the usual pro- 
gram followed at these seances was car- 
ried through with satisfactory results to 
all concerned, when General Schurz was 
urged to call for some spirit and receive 
a message for himself. He called for the 
spirit of Schiller. After a minute or two 
of waiting the girl wrote that the spirit 
of the poet had come and was ready to 
answer questions. General Schurz replied 
that for the purpose of identification he 
would like some quotation from Schiller's 
works. The girl then wrote in German : 
"Ich hoere rauschende Musik. Das Schloss 

Von Lichtern hell. Wir sind die Froehli- 

Which, translated, is : 
"Gay music strikes my ear. The castle is 
Aglow with lights. We are the revelers." 

All present heard with astonishment, 
for the words had a familiar ring. It was a 
characteristic Schiller vei'se, although no 
one could identify the lines. Finally it 
occurred to General Schurz that the quo- 
tation must be from Wallenstein's Death. 
He wondered, doubting whether the young 
girl could possibly have read these lines. 
Meanwhile some one brought out a volume 
of Schiller. The lines were found as 
quoted. This remarkable experience could 
not be explained and the young girl told 
General Schurz at the end of the seance 
that she had never read a line of "Wallen- 
stein's Tod." 



-19 16 

After this strange attempt to communi- 
cate with spirits, General Schurz called 
for the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. The 
spirit was summoned, and when Mr. 
Schurz inquired why President Johnson 
had called him to Washington, the answer 
came: "He wants you to make an im- 
portant journey for him." Naturally de- 
sirous of knowing where he was to go, 
General Schurz received the answer : "He 
will tell you tomorrow." Asking whether 
he should undertake the journey, he was 
told: "Yes, do not fail." General Schurz 
here states positively that he was at this 
time ignorant of the President's plans, 
which strangely enough had to do with 
General Schurz's important journey of 
observation through the South that was 
undertaken very shortly after this Wash- 
ington conference. General Schurz ven- 
tured one more question to the spirit of 
Lincoln, and that was simply whether the 
latter had anything more to say. Then 
came the answer: "Yes: You will be a 
Senator of the United States." 

General Schurz, strongly tempted to 
laugh, asked from what State? 

Distinctly came the answer: "From 
Missouri." This ended the interview, 
leaving General Schurz much surprised, as 
he had no political aspirations and no sort 
of business, professional or residential con- 
nection whatever with Missouri. His legal 
place of residence was in Wisconsin. Two 
years later a business transaction took 
him unexpectedly to St. Louis, where he 
became interested in the Westliche Post. 

In January, 1869, he was elected by the 
Legislature of Missouri as a Senator of 
the United States to succeed John B. Hen- 
derson. He then recalled the seance at 
the house of Dr. Tiedemann, as did also 
the friends who had been present when 
the message came. 

In the third volume of his memoirs Carl 
Schurz relates this episode at aforemen- 
tioned seance. He makes no comment on 
the value or reliability of such demonstra- 
tions, but submits the account of his own 
experience as a proof of the existence of 
occult forces whose power and scope we do 
not yet understand and never may fathom. 

[Chapter XXXIV.] 



F, during the melancholy days 
of November, in 1872, any one 
imagined that the disastrous 
ending of the Greeley campaign 
meant the utter annihilation 
of Democratic hopes and ex- 

pectations, such delusion was 

easily dispelled two years later. 

Grant's triumphant re-election was not 
at all gratifying to a majority of the 
American people. It was an accident due 
to a number of circumstances fully eluci- 
dated in preceding pages. 

Political reaction soon set in. It was 
caused partly by the so-called uprising of 
the farmers against monopoly and partly 
by the salary grab. The farmers believed 
themselves grievously wronged, especial- 
ly by the railroad corporations. The 
Grange became quite active in the anti- 
monopoly movement and made its hostility 
felt effectively in a number of Western 
States. Wisconsin and Kansas led in this 

Popular indignation was aroused by 
Congress increasing the salary of its mem- 
bers 50 per cent. This was considered 
an ine.xcusable and indefensible raid upon 
the public treasury. Especially odious was 
the "back-pay" feature of the act. The 
Republicans being at the time in absolute 
control, were properly held responsible for 
helping themselves too freely to the public 

In Indiana considerable ill feeling was 
aroused by the Republican Legislature 
enacting into law the so-called Baxter bill, 
at which the so-called "liberal element" 
took high umbrage. The purpose of the 
Baxter law was to restrict the sale of in- 
toxicating liquor. Under its provisions 
the applicant for a license to operate a 

saloon had to present to the Board of 
County Commissioners a petition signed 
by a majority of the voters of the locality 
before being granted a permit. All saloons 
were required to be closed at 9 o'clock in 
the evening. This was by some considered 
an inconvenient early hour. The "liberal 
element" considered the Baxter law an un- 
warranted interference with personal lib- 
erty. It was fathered by a Wayne county 
Quaker named Baxter. When passed by 
both houses of the General Assembly, 
strong pressure was brought to bear upon 
Governor Hendricks to veto the bill, but 
he, emulating a Democratic predecessor. 
Governor Joseph A. Wright, refused to 
yield to this pressure and appended his 
signature thereto. While the "liberal ele- 
ment" did not take kindly to Governor 
Hendricks' action in the premises, it in- 
flicted punishment upon the Republican 
party for putting the bill through the legis- 
lative department of the commonwealth. 

The Greenback movement also made 
itself felt quite strongly during the early 

The campaign of 1874 did not start out 
under very auspicious circumstances. 
March 11 the Democratic State Committee 
met at Indianapolis. Something had hap- 
pened that displeased the State Chairman, 
a most estimable gentleman named Elijah 
S. Alvord. He tendered his resignation 
and was succeeded by Joseph E. McDonald. 
The State convention met July 15 and was 
called to order by Chairman McDonald. 
Governor Thomas A. Hendricks was made 
permanent chairman. He delivered one of 
his characteristically conciliatory and cap- 
tivating speeches, in the course of which 
he gave his reasons for not vetoing the 
muchly discussed and fiercely assailed 



19 16 

Baxter bill. The main reason assigned was 
that the Legislature doubtless was clothed 
with power to regulate the liquor traffic 
in such manner as to protect society from 
the evils of intemperance in so far as legis- 
lative restriction might accomplish that 
purpose. In the main Governor Hendricks 
succeeded in satisfying the majority of his 
hearers that the course he pursued in this 
matter was prompted by high purposes, 
and that inasmuch as it was not contended 
that the bill was unconstitutional, no real 
justification was at hand to veto a meas- 
ure intended to lessen the evils of intem- 
perance and to promote public morals. 


1. Thomas B. Byrnes, Vanderburg county. 

2. C. F. Taylor, Sullivan. 

3. John D. Lyle, Bartholomew. 

4. B. F. Smith, Rush. 

5. I. P. Gray, Randolph. 

6. D. S. Gooding, Hancock. 

7. J. J. Bingham, Marion. 

8. John T. Scott, Vigo. 

9. General M. D. Manson, Montgomery. 

10. H. E. Wadsworth, Laporte. 

11. Rufus Magee, Cass. 

12. William Craig, Wells. 

13. Laporte Heefner, Elkhart. 


There was a sharp contest for several 
of the State offices, notably for the Au- 
ditorship. Young men were very much in 
evidence. It was that element which 
brought about the nomination of John 
Enos Neff, one of the bright young Demo- 
crats of central eastern Indiana. The 
nomination of Colonel Shaw for State 
Treasurer was an appreciated compliment 
to the soldier element, and the selection 
of Horace P. Biddle for Supreme Judge did 
much to bring into the Democratic fold a 
goodly number of voters then strongly in- 
clined to detach themselves from the 
Republican organization. The ticket as 
nominated was thus constituted : 

Secretary of State — John E. Neff, Randolph. 

Auditor — Ebenezer Henderson, Morgan. 

Treasurer — Colonel B. C. Shaw, Marion. 

Superintendent of Public Instruction — Prof. 
James H. Smart, Allen. 

Attorney-General — Clarence A. Buskirk, Gib- 

Judge Supreme Court — Horace P. Biddle, Cass. 

The campaign of 1874 was not a very 
lively affair. It took care of itself. Re- 
publican disaffection was very much in evi- 
dence. The "liberal element" was bent on 
rebuking the enactment of the Baxter law. 
The Granger movement shook the faith of 
many hide-bound Republicans who for 
years had been voting the party ticket. 
This combination of circumstances proved 
very helpful to Democracy. The October 
election resulted in a sweeping Democratic 
victory. The vote for Secretary of State 
stood: Neff, 182,053; W. W. Curry, 
164,955. The majorities for the Demo- 
cratic nominees were: Neff, 17,099; Hen- 
derson, 16,059; Shaw, 16,409; Buskirk, 
12,796; Smart, 15,944; Biddle, 32,364. All 
of the Republican two-year State officers 
elected in 1872 were renominated in con- 
vention and defeated at the polls. James 
F. Wildman had his political wounds 
healed by subsequently being made post- 
master of Indianapolis, and the Rev. 
W. W. Curry, an exceptionally bright and 
able man, was given a position in one of 
the departments at Washington. He is 
still in office there, though past ninety 
years. His attendance at the meetings of 
the Indiana society at the national capital 
is said to be remarkably regular. In 
former years Mr. Curry was considered an 
able and eloquent champion of universal- 

The election of thirteen Congressmen 
from the reconstructed districts — the 
number having been increased from eleven 
to thirteen — brought to the surface some 
new favorite sons. Among these may be 
mentioned: Benoni S. Fuller, James D. 
Williams, Jeptha D. New, Milton S. 
Robinson, Franklin Landers, William S. 
Raymond, James L. Evans, Andrew H. 
Hamilton and John H. Baker. Politically 
the delegation stood, eight Democrats to 



18 16-1916 

five Republicans. The re-elected Congress- 
men were Michael C. Kerr, William S. Hol- 
man, Morton C. Hunter, Thomas J. Cason. 
In the First district Benoni S. Fuller suc- 
ceeded William E. Niblack; the Second 
district sent "Blue Jeans" Williams to 
Congress; the reconstructed Fourth dis- 
trict named Jeptha D. New, and Judge 
Holman was gerrymandered into the Fifth 
district. Upon his nomination to the 
Governorship in 1876 Williams resigned 
his seat in Congress and was succeeded by 
Andrew Humphreys to fill the unexpired 
term. Michael C. Kerr was made Speaker 
of the Forty-fourth Congress, but died 
not many months after his selection for 
that exalted position. Nathan T. Carr of 
Bartholomew county was chosen to fill the 
unexpired term. 

JOSEPH E. Mcdonald chosen 


In addition to electing all the candidates 
for the various State offices by decisive 
majorities and the handsome gains made 
in the choice of members of Congress, the 
Democrats obtained a good working ma- 
jority in the General Assembly. This part 
of the result made it possible to replace 
Hon. Daniel D. Pratt with a Democrat 
in the United States Senate. But for the 
fact that Daniel W. Voorhees had unfortu- 
nately and unwisely voted for the "salary 
grab" that so strongly aroused popular in- 
dignation, the "Tall Sycamore of the Wa- 
bash" would undoubtedly have been made 
the recipient of that honor. There were a 
number of candidates in the race, chief 
among them being Joseph E. McDonald, 
Daniel W. Voorhees and William S. Hol- 
man. Up to that time my acquaintance 
with Mr. Voorhees had not ripened into 
intimacy, but it was quite pleasant. When 
the contest was on I thought I would take 
a hand in it by giving my cherished old 
friend Holman a little boost. Accordingly 
I went to Indianapolis. At the Bates 
House was being fought the preliminary 
battle for the Senatorial prize. I joined 

the throng. Pretty soon Mr. Voorhees 
espied me in the crowd. Greeting me very 
cordially, he inquired what had brought me 
to Indianapolis. With the utmost frank- 
ness and candor I told him that I had come 
to the State capital to do my part toward 
defeating his aspirations to the Senator- 
ship. At first he seemed utterly dum- 
founded over this icy declaration. Quickly 
recovering from a plainly visible surprise, 
he said in his inimitable way : "And would 
you mind telling me upon what ground you 
are opposing me ?" My answer was : "You 
know very well how wrought up public 
sentiment is over that unfortunate salary 
grab episode. To nominate and elect you 
now to the important office you are seek- 
ing would amount to and could easily be 
construed as a deliberate endorsement of 
your vote for that ill-advised appropriation 
of public funds. From a party point of 
view such a course would be absolutely 
ruinous. Had you taken the proper course 
in voting on that ill-timed and questionable 
proposition no power on earth could have 
prevented your election to the Senatorship 
from Indiana. Instead of opposing you, I 
would be here advocating with all my 
might your elevation to this high office. 
It is painful to me to say this to one whom 
so many of the people idolize as they 
idolize no other public man in Indiana, but 
truth is truth, and I believe in looking at 
things from that point of view." He 
listened attentively. A saddened expres- 
sion came upon his superb physiognomy. 
At last he said: "You may be right." 
With that he walked away. In a half -hour 
after this conversation came the announce- 
ment from his headquarters that Mr. Voor- 
hees had retired from the Senatorial race 
and desired his friends to rally to the sup- 
port of Joseph E. McDonald. 

The money question was uppermost in 
the public mind at that time. Voorhees 
was a pronounced champion of the green- 
back cause; McDonald was just as pro- 
nounced in favor of sound (hard) money, 
while Holman was delightfully conserv- 


-19 1 

ative in his views on the money question. 
McDonald attested the courage of his con- 
victions by going to Greencastle during the 
1874 campaign and delivering to the Put- 
nam county Democracy a forceful and 
very able argument in opposition to green- 
backism and in support of the old-time 
Democratic doctrine of hard money (gold 
and silver) being maintained in our mone- 
tary system. It was a bitter pill for some 
of the Greenback Democrats to swallow, 
but they had to come to it. Voorhees 
wanted McDonald to step into the Sena- 
torial shoes of Dan Pratt and he did not 
want Holman to slip into them under any 
circumstance. McDonald and Voorhees 
were warm personal and political friends, 
though differing on the money question. 
It can hardly be said that there existed 
ties of imperishable friendship between 
Holman and Voorhees. 

As an indication of the broad-minded- 
ness and big-heartedness of Daniel W. 
Voorhees it is in order to state in this con- 
nection that instead of harboring a spirit 
of resentment or enmity toward me for my 
frank avowal of hostility to his Senatorial 
aspirations in 1875, he ever afterward 
made me the beneficiary of his most cor- 
dial friendship. Whenever and wherever 
it was within his power to render me a 
kindness or do me a favor it was done un- 
grudgingly and unstintedly. He was more 
than cordial. When opportunity presented 
itself to render me a service he did it un- 
hesitatingly and unreservedly. These 
relations were maintained to the end of 
this great and good man's earthly career. 
When assailed within the camp he usually 
availed himself of the columns of my 
paper to defend himself and his course. 
On some questions we differed, but such 
differences never were permitted in the 
slightest degree to diminish our friend- 

In the legislative caucus for the nomina- 
tion of a candidate for Senator Mr. Mc- 
Donald was an easy winner. The Voor- 
hees forces, all or nearly all advocates of 

the greenback idea, supported him with 
avidity. The hard money element were, 
of course, glad to see one of their number 
chosen to a seat in the Senate. The Hol- 
man forces, as usual, lacked organization 
and cohesiveness. Mr. McDonald became 
the successor of Daniel D. Pratt ; as such he 
distinguished himself by the development 
of legislative capabilities that soon marked 
him as one of the foremost members of 
that august body. His colleague was 
Oliver P. Morton. Thus it was that both 
of the two leading parties of Indiana were 
represented in the Senate at Washington 
by two of their ablest and most conspicu- 
ous champions. In 1864 they were pitted 
against one another in the memorable con- 
test for the Governorship. In less than a 
dozen years afterward they were fellow- 
members of the highest legislative body 
in the world. Both were men of distin- 
guished ability; both did their utmost to 
give force and validity to the ideas that 
guided their political and legislative activ- 

Under date of April 30, 1911, former 
Congressman John E. Lamb wrote me 
from Terre Haute in regard to the Sena- 
torial contest of 1875: "Voorhees went 
out of Congress in 1873, having been beat- 
en in the Greeley campaign of 1872, and he 
was not a candidate even for the nomina- 
tion, but had retired to private life. He 
was dragged into the contest in 1875 by 
over-zealous friends. I know he was very 
loath to go into it and never had any heart- 
burnings because he was beaten." 

As a young man, John E. Lamb at- 
tracted the attention of Mr. Voorhees and 
was induced to study law in Voorhees' 
office. Upon his admission to the bar 
young Lamb made rapid progress in his 
chosen profession. In course of time he 
built up a large and lucrative practice. 
Professional duties never deterred him 
from active participation in politics. In 
1882 he was elected to Congress from the 
Terre Haute district. Repeatedly he rep- 
resented his district or the State in Na- 



tional conventions. He delighted in polit- 
ical contests. No event in his life caused 
him greater delight than the election of 
Mr. Voorhees to the Senate. In 1909 he 

aspired to a seat in the upper branch of 
Congress, but was defeated by Benjamin 
F. Shively. Five years later he died, after 
a lingering illness. 


[Chapter XXXV.] 



1 HE Indiana Democracy, buoyant 

and jubilant over its signal vic- 
tory in 1874, met in State con- 
vention at Indianapolis on 
I Wednesday, April 19, 1876. 
The attendance was large; the 
delegates were imbued with 
fervent spirit; harmony set in after a 
lively tilt had been had over the Governor- 
ship. A ticket was placed in nomination 
that all felt assured would be triumphant- 
ly elected in October. 

The convention was called to order by 
General Mahlon D. Manson, who served as 
temporary chairman in order to save time 
and expedite business. 

Judge Thomas R. Cobb, of Vincennes, 
was chosen president of the convention 
and John W. Kern served as principal sec- 

John B. Handy, Henry A. Peed, Stephen 
J. Barrett, Cyrus B. Bentley, George T. B. 
Carr, Dr. Rice, John Lee, Milton Bell, Eli 
W. Brown and Judge E. Van Long were 
named as vice-presidents. 


For the State at Large — Daniel W. Voorhees, 
of Terra Haute; John S. Scobey, of Greensburg. 

1. G. V. Menzies, Posey county. 

2. William D. Bynum, Daviess. 

3. Jonas G. Howard, Clark. 

4. Edward P. Ferris, Ripley. 

5. General N. S. Given, Dearborn. 

6. Charles G. Offut, Hancock. 

7. Thomas Cottrell, Marion. 

8. S. D. Puitt, Parke. 

9. T. J. Harrison, Boone. 

10. George Burson, Pulaski. 

11. Dr. J. A. Adrian, Cass. 

12. Isaiah B. McDonald, Whitley. 

13. Woodson S. Marshall, Kosciusko. 


At Large — Senator Joseph E. McDonald, Con- 
gressman Michael C. Kerr, General Mahlon D. 
Manson, Bayless W. Hanna. 

Contingents — Colonel Charles Denby, Captain 
J. A. S. Mitchell, William Fleming, Dr. George W. 

1. Thomas E. Garvin, Vanderburg county. 
O. M. Welborn, Gibson. 

2. Samuel H. Taylor, Daviess. 
Thomas R. Cobb, Knox. 

3. Samuel B. Voyles, Washington. 
Francis T. Hord, Bartholomew. 

4. Cortez Ewing, Decatur. 
Thomas Armstrong, Switzerland. 

5. O. H. Roberts, Dearborn. 
James Elder, Wayne. 

6. James W. Sansbury, Madison. 
J. F. McDowell, Grant. 

7. G. W. Neff, Putnam. 
J. B. Ryan, Marion. 

8. D. W. Voorhees, Vigo. 
Elijah Newland, Lawrence. 

9. John S. Williams, Tippecanoe. 
David P. Barnard, Clinton. 

10. John H. Winterbotham, Laporte. 
B. B. Dailey, Carroll. 

11. John Mitchell, Miami. 

A. F. Armstrong, Howard. 

12. Samuel McGaughney, Huntington. 
M. V. B. Spencer, Allen. 

13. John B. Stoll, Noble. 
Daniel McDonald, Marshall. 


1. Thomas Byrnes, Vanderburg county. 

2. Calvin Taylor, Sullivan. 

3. John D. Lyle, Bartholomew. 

4. Charles L. Jewett, Scott. 

5. S. S. Harrell, Franklin. 

6. Alonzo Blair, Shelby. 

7. R. J. Bright, Marion. 

8. Judge John T. Scott, Vigo. 

9. M. D. Manson, Montgomery. 

10. H. E. Wadsworth, Laporte. 

11. D. D. Dykeman, Cass. 

12. W. J. Craig, Wells. 

13. Laporte Heefner, Elkhart. 

The names of Congres.sman William S. 
Holman of Dearborn, and of Congressman 
Franklin Landers were presented as can- 


1 9 1 

didates for Governor. Judge Holman was 
not at the convention ; Landers was. Hol- 
man's candidacy was spontaneous. No one 
in particular was in charge of it; no one 
seems to have had authority to speak for 
him. His nomination was urged with 
vigor and enthusiasm by the Ligonier 
Banner, and its editor was active and en- 
ergetic in espousing the cause of the 
famous "Watchdog of the Treasury." 
There had been no correspondence on the 
subject. The editor of the Banner felt 
assured that Samuel J. Tilden would be 
the Democratic standard-bearer in the 
national campaign, and that therefore a 
man of Judge Holman's fame as a cham- 
pion of retrenchment and reform ought to 
head the State ticket. The balloting indi- 
cated that the race between Holman and 
Landers would be close. Just as the last 
county had been called, Mr. Landers, sit- 
ting with the Marion county delegation, 
arose and asked permission to make a 
statement. Meanwhile the tabulation was 
completed. The Holman forces had been 
accorded especially favorable seating fa- 
cilities in the convention hall, while the 
Marion delegation had been assigned to 
the gallery. Being in close proximity to 
the secretary's desk, the leaders of the 
Holman forces were given a tip that Hol- 
man had received a majority of all the 
votes cast and therefore nominated. Re- 
quest was sent to the secretary not to hand 
the result of the ballot to the chair, but 
to await developments. 

Apprehension was felt thiat something 
was going to happen. Mr. Landers had 
some difficulty in getting a hearing. Bed- 
lam broke loose when it became known 
that Landers had something to say about 
Holman. The yelling was terrific. Lan- 
ders was shouted at to sit down, but he 
didn't. High up in the gallery he stood, 
complacently looking down upon the mad- 
dened delegates who wanted Holman and 
not Landers for Governor. It was a crit- 
ical situation. The Holman men had 

learned all of a sudden that it was the 
determination of the Landers following to 
break up the convention in a row if Hol- 
man were made the nominee. Physical 
exhaustion caused a lull in the yelling. 
At last Landers was permitted to speak. 
He said before announcing himself a can- 
didate for Governor he had a conference 
with Judge Holman, in the course of which 
he (Landers) went fully over the situation 
and then said to Holman that if he had 
any desire or intention to enter the race, 
he (Landers) would not be a candidate. 
Landers declared with vehemence and the 
utmost positiveness that Holman assured 
him he would not be a candidate; that 
upon this assurance he (Landers) became 
an avowed, active candidate for the 
Gubernatorial nomination. Dramatically 
he averred that if there was any one in 
the convention authorized to speak for 
Judge Holman he wanted that individual 
to rise in his seat and state just what 
Judge's attitude was. No one re- 
sponded to this challenge. Then Landers 
resumed his speech, saying that in view 
of what had taken place between himself 
and Judge Holman there could be no con- 
test between the parties to that compact. 
Em.phasizing his determination not to let 
the contest proceed he announced his 
withdrawal from the race. While these ve- 
hement utterances came thundering down 
the gallerj.', the Holman leaders hurriedly 
held a conference to determine what 
course to pursue. The writer of this, upon 
whom primarily rested responsibility for 
the Holman movement, said it had become 
apparent that if the result of the ballot, 
showing Holman to have a majority of all 
votes cast and making him the nominee 
were announced, the convention would un- 
doubtedly break up in a row. "This," he 
added, "we can't afford to have done, how- 
ever unpleasant it may be to surrender 
after having won the battle." There was 
some objection to the proposition to with- 
draw Holman's name after he had been 


1 8 1 

19 16 

nominated; though the result of the ballot 
was knowTi to only a few. Finally in the 
interest of peace it was agreed that Hol- 
me n's name should be withdrawn, and 
that of "Blue Jeans" Williams, also then a 
member of Congress, substituted. These 
announcements restored order as well as 
harmony in the convention and the nom- 
ination of James D. Williams, of Vin- 
cennes, was thereupon, on motion of 
Austin H. Brown, of Indianapolis, made 
by acclamation amidst vociferous shouting 
of approval and unrestrained manifesta- 
tion of relief. 

Two names were proposed for Lieuten- 
ant-Governor — Isaac P. Gray, of Ran- 
dolph county, and David Turpie, of Indi- 
anapolis. The name of Turpie was im- 
mediately withdrawn and Gray nominated 
by acclamation. 

The gentlemen nominated and trium- 
phantly elected in 1874 were honored with 
renominations by acclamation and the 
ticket in its entirety consisted of James 
D. Williams for Governor, Isaac P. Gray 
for Lieutenant-Governor, John Enos Neff 
for Secretary of State, Ebenezer Hender- 
son for Auditor, Colonel Benjamin C. 
Shaw for Treasurer, Clarence A. Buskirk 
for Attorney-General, James H. Smart for 
Superintendent of Public Instruction. For 
Suprem.e Judges the convention named 
Samuel H. Buskirk, of Monroe; Alexander 
C. Downey, of Ohio; John Pettit, of 
Lafayette, and James L. Worden, of Fort 
Wayne. At the October election Williams' 
majority for Governor over General Ben- 
jamin Harrison was 5,139. Other major- 
ities were: Gray's, 5,43.5; Neff's, 6,035; 
Henderson's, 5,817 ; Shaw's, 5,801. 

By resolution Thomas A. Hendricks 
was declared to be the choice of the 
Indiana Democracy for the Presidency of 
the United States and the delegates to the 
St. Louis convention were instructed to 
vote accordingly as a unit. 


"The Democracy of Indiana declare their 
fidelity to all the provisions of the Federal 
Constitution, to a perpetual union of the 
States, to local self-government in every 
section, to all public trusts and obligations, 
to the honest payment of the public debt, 
to the preservation of the public faith, to 
the maintenance of the free schools, and 
to the pure and economical administration 
of the Federal, State and municipal gov- 
ernments. They contemplate with alarm 
the distress that prevails, the widespread 
financial ruin that impends over the people 
and the corruption that pervades the pub- 
lic service, and they charge that these evils 
are the direct results of the personal gov- 
ernment, unwise legislation, vicious finan- 
cial policy, extravagance, the great con- 
traction of the currency and selfishness of 
the party and its officials who have so long 
held unchecked control. Inviting all who 
believe in and earnestly desire official pur- 
ity and fidelity, the adjustment of financial 
questions upon a sound basis, having a re- 
gard for the interests and welfare of the 
whole people, and not a class, and the 
recognition of a final settlement of all 
questions submitted to the arbitrament of 
the sword to unite with them, they de- 
clare : 

"For the eflRciency, correction and puri- 
fication of the civil service; for retrench- 
ment and economy in the public service; 
for gold and silver as the true and safe 
basis for a circulating medium; for the 
gradual retirement of national bank cur- 
rency and the substitution of circulating 
notes issued direct by the Government; 
for a natural (not forced) return to specie 
payments ; for a legal tender currency and 
against its proposed retirement; for the 
repeal of the partisan act to force specie 
resumption, to the detriment of the debtor 
class; for the protection and furtherance 
of our common school system ; for a duly 
safeguarded liquor license system; for the 
proper care and welfare of the soldiers and 
sailors who defended the Union ; against 
the payment of any part of the rebel debt, 
claims for emancipated slaves or de.stroyed 
property in the rebel States." 

Upon the adjournment of the conven- 
tion the appointed delegates to the 
National convention were invited to a con- 
ference to make arrangements for the 

( 267 ) 


18 1 

19 16 

gathering at St. Louis. Senator McDon- 
ald, fresh from Washington, gave a de- 
tailed statement of prospects, promises, 
assurances, etc. According to his version 
the prospects were exceedingly bright for 
the nomination of Mr. Hendricks. The 
Senator named State upon State from 
which he had assurances of support. His 
statements were exceedingly rosy; so 
much so that those who did not closely fol- 
low the trend of developments in the po- 
litical arena might well have assumed that 
the nomination of Mr. Hendricks had be- 
come a foregone conclusion. While all the 
delegates were earnest supporters and 
stanch friends of Indiana's favorite son, 
some of them shared the opinion of keen, 
unbiased observers that indications 
pointed unerringly to the selection of Mr. 
Tilden. It was in the air; it appeared to 
be foreordained; destiny would seem to 
have so decreed. 

The Presidential convention was held at 
St. Louis on the 28th of June. It was 
a gathering of men who had in view the 
accomplishment of a patriotic purpose — 
the nomination of a ticket that would com- 
mend itself to the patriotism of the nation. 
The regular New York delegation was 
composed of perhaps the most accom- 
plished gentlemen that ever attended a 
national convention. The presence of a 
contesting delegation, embracing the rem- 
nants of the old Tweed ring and the dis- 
credited canal ring, only tended to in- 
tensify the feeling in favor of Tilden. 
Tammany was demonstrative but not com- 
manding. In visiting the various State 
delegations to give reasons why Tilden 
ought not to be nominated it soon became 
apparent that the more vindictive the talk 
against Tilden the stronger sentiment 
grew in his favor. The famous prize 
fighter, John Morrissey, was among those 
who did most effective work by way of 
counteracting the doings of the Tweed and 
canal rings. Morrissey was very much in 

demand wherever Presidential candidates 
were under discussion. In his blunt yet 
singularly effective way he started out to 
say that every mother's son on the ground 
to fight Tilden had a grievance based on 
some happening, some injury inflicted by 
Tilden's unsparing warfare against cor- 
ruption and thievery. "If I were actuated 
by personal grievance," he averred, "I 
would be with them in opposing Tilden's 
nomination. I have a genuine grievance, 
a personal and political grievance. He 
caused me to be fired out of the Saratoga 
convention, although fully persuaded at 
the time that I was entitled to a seat. But 
when I cast about me, and contemplate 
the havoc that has been wrought in the 
South by carpet-bag rule ; when I take into 
account the degradation of the public 
service, and when I contemplate how 
greatly this country stands in need of a 
master mind at the head of the Govern- 
ment to correct abuses and bring order 
out of chaos, I forget all about the per- 
sonal indignity offered me and determine 
to roll up my sleeves and do my utmost 
to place in the White House a man who 
will do for the country at large what he 
did when he cleaned out the Tweed ring 
in the city of New York and the canal 
ring in the State. For these reasons I 
am here to contribute my mite to the nom- 
ination of Samuel J. Tilden and to coun- 
teract the efforts of Tammany and kin- 
dred organizations." The oratorical ef- 
forts of John Morrissey, the prize fighter, 
counted for much more than did the com- 
bined efforts of the five hundred "braves" 
who ostentatiously paraded the streets of 
St. Louis to make a showing against Til- 

The political wisdom of the managers 
of the Tilden forces was made manifest 
by the selection of Henry Watterson as 
tem.porary chairman and of General John 
A. McClernand, of Illinois, for president 
of the convention. It was furthermore 
made manifest when John Kelly, the fa- 


18 16-1916 

mous Tammany chief, endeavored to tell 
the convention why that organization was 
arrayed against Tilden. The convention, 
overwhelmingly for the Sage of Gramercy, 
did not want to listen to a tirade against 
their favorite. L'or minutes Kelly stood 
defiantly upon an elevation to be seen and 
heard. The protests against his being 
given a hearing were loud and menacing. 
The more he tried to talk the louder 
sounded the voices of protest. Finally 
Senator Francis Kernan, one of Tilden's 
New York supporters, gained the atten- 
tion of the chair. In well chosen words 
the New York Senator said the friends 
of Mr. Tilden had nothing to fear from 
anything Mr. Kelly might wish to say. 
"Accord to him a respectful hearing, and 
then vote as your judgment may dictate." 
The request was complied with. The con- 
vention listened patiently and attentively, 
and then deliberately proceeded to render 
judgment by nominating Tilden with a 

Seven names were submitted for consid- 
eration — Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of 
New York; Governor Thomas A. Hen- 
dricks, of Indiana ; General Winfield Scott 
Hancock, of Pennsylvania ; Governor Wil- 
liam Allen, of Ohio; Senator Thomas F. 
Bayard, of Delaware; Governor Joel 
Parker, of New Jersey, and Senator Allen 
G. Thurman, of Ohio. All of these emi- 
nent Democrats were men of high charac- 
ter and all had rendered distinguished 
service to their country. An informal bal- 
lot plainly foreshadowed Mr. Tilden's 
nomination on a formal ballot. Total num- 
ber of votes, 744 ; necessary to a choice, 
496. Mr. Tilden received 535 votes, Hen- 
dricks 60, Hancock 59, Allen 54, Bayard 
11, Parker 18, Thurman 7. Mr. Hen- 
dricks was named for the Vice-Presidency 
by acclamation. Some difficulty was ex- 
perienced in inducing him to accept. John 
Kelly and some of his lieutenants .stopped 
off at Indianapolis on their homeward 
journey to impress upon Mr. Hendricks' 
mind that he could not afford to turn down 

a nomination tendered by such a conven- 
tion as had met in St. Louis. Mr. Kelly 
had 7,ealously advocated the nomination of 
Mr. Hendricks for President. 

There was a good deal of bitterness 
among the Ohio delegates. The feud be- 
tween Governor Allen and Senator Thur- 
man was not easily held in subjection. 
Some of the Allenites at one time talked 
of a bolt, but wiser counsels prevailed. At- 
tempts were made to enlist the Indiana 
delegation in such a movement. Now, 
while the entire delegation was heartily 
for Mr. Hendricks, not all the delegates 
were hostile to Mr. Tilden. When a bolt 
was suggested some of the Indiana dele- 
gates spoke their minds quite freely j nd 
emphatically. John H. Winterbotham, of 
Michigan City, was especially outspoken 
in expressing his disapproval of the sense- 
less fight that had been made on Mr. Til- 
den by Indiana men. He said that while 
he had steadfastly supported Mr. Hen- 
dricks he wanted it distinctly understood 
that he was utterly disgusted at the ora- 
torical "rot" to which he had listened for 
several days, and that it was high time for 
some of the Indiana men to show that they 
were not a pack of numskulls. A goodly 
number of Indianians heartily applauded 
Mr. Winterbotham's plain and emphatic 

One of the most level-headed Indianians 
in attend-^nce at the St. Louis convention 
was William Fleming, of Fort Wayne. For 
years he had been a leader in Northern 
Indiana. In his own county, Allen, he was 
ci power. His political wisdom had often 
helped to adjust difficulties and ward off 
disaster. It did not take him long to see 
the handwriting on the wall. before 
the nomination of Tilden was effected he 
said that there could be no doubt as to Mr. 
Tilden proving a very formidable candi- 
date before the people, but he feared that 
the bitter fight waged against him by the 
Cincitivat' Enquirer and nearly the entire 
Democratic press of Indiana would make 
it impossible to carry the State. When 


19 16 

the writer replied to this by saying that 
in less than six weeks enthusiasm for 
Tilden and Hendricks would run so high 
as to remove all doubt about Indiana going 
Democratic, Mr. Fleming expressed utter 
amazement that such expectancy could 
possibly lurk in any one's mind. Before 
six weeks had rolled around Mr. Fleming 
freely admitted that he had ceased to be 
a doubting Thomas. 

The platform adopted by the St. Louis 
convention was the most comprehensive 
and specific declaration of political pur- 
pose ever promulgated by any party. It 
set forth in plain terms what Mr. Tilden 
intended to bring about, purification of 
the public service and correction of long- 
existing abuses being the chief object 
sought to be accomplished. It is generally 
understood that Mr. Tilden himself wrote 
the platform. At any rate, such was the 
understanding at St. Louis. For that 
reason all suggestions of change or modi- 
fication were discountenanced. It is too 
lengthy to be here reproduced; it is so 
terse in its wording that no mere epitome 
or synopsis could possibly do it ample 
justice. Every student of politics ought 
to make it a point to read and study this 
platform declaration — and profit by it. 
Wide circulation was given it during the 
progress of the campaign. Public speakers 
utilized it to fullest extent by way of tell- 
ing the American people what might be 
expected to be done in the event of Tilden 
and Hendricks's election. 

The campaign was masterfully con- 
ducted under Mr. Tilden's personal direc- 
tion. He sent several experienced cam- 
paign managers to Indiana — one from 
New York and one from Pennsylvania — 
to aid the Democratic State Committee 
and to keep him fully advised of the prog- 
ress of the campaign. His trusted lieu- 
tenant, Wm. Dorsheimer, then serving 
with Mr. Tilden as Lieutenant-Governor 
of the Empire State, a man of superior 
ability and high accomplishments as a 
platform speaker, was sent into Indiana to 

deliver two speeches — one in Indianapolis, 
the other at Ligonier. Much surprise was 
expressed that so small a place as Ligonier 
should have been selected when larger 
places were clamoring for a man so close 
to Mr. Tilden as was Mr. Dorsheimer. The 
explanation was given that this compli- 
ment was bestowed by reason of the fact 
that the cause of Tilden had been so earn- 
estly and persistently espoused there by 
Mr. Stoll's paper when in most other lo- 
calities abuse of Mr. Tilden seemed to be 
regarded a Democratic duty. Before 
reaching Ligonier Mr. Dorsheimer had 
held several conferences in Ohio with 
Democratic leaders of that State. He had 
become profoundly impressed with the 
assurances given him that by devoting 
some attention to Ohio that State could 
be cai-ried for Tilden and Hendricks. 
When urged by the writer to present this 
aspect of the campaign to Mr. Tilden, Mr. ■ 
Dorsheimer stated that he had already 
done so, but had received no encourage- 
ment. Mr. Tilden, he said, had mapped 
out his program and could not be swerved 
from it. He did hot believe in scattering ; 
that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut 
and Indiana had been chosen as the bat- 
tleground and that the electoral votes of 
these four Northern States, coupled with 
those of the South, would answer every 
purpose. Having received no attention 
from the Democratic National Committee, 
Ohio was lost to Tilden by the paltry plu- 
rality of 7,506. There isn't the slightest 
doubt that if Ohio had been given half the 
attention bestowed upon Indiana, Tilden 
and Hendricks would have become the 
beneficiaries .of that State's twenty-two 
votes in the electoral college. 

Approximately similar conditions ex- 
isted in Pennsylvania. Hayes carried that 
State by less than 18,000. With anything 
like an effort the Keystone State could 
easily have been wrested from the Repub- 
licans. Hayes himself had neither mag- 
netism nor reputation to render his candi- 
dacy attractive or formidable. His nomi- 

( 270) 


nation was an accident, the result of a 
plot on the part of Grant, Conkling, Mor- 
ton and Cameron to prevent the nomi- 
nation of James G. Blaine, who from the 
beginning to the close of the Cincinnati 
convention had a clear majority of the 
delegates. Tied up by cunningly devised 
instruction, the votes of Blaine delegates 
were withheld until plans had been ma- 
tured to stampede the convention to a 
nominal candidate, who turned out to be 
Rutherford B. Hayes. 

The result of the election was that Til- 
den and Hendricks had to their credit on 
the popular vote 4,284,757; Hayes and 
Wheeler, 4,033,950; Cooper and Gary, 
81,740 ; Green Clay Smith, 9,522. Of the 
electors chosen by the people, Tilden and 
Hendricks had 203; Hayes and Wheeler, 
166. After Hayes had acknowledged de- 
feat Zachariah Chandler, W. E. Chandler 
and other Republican marplots conceived 
the idea of laying claim to the electors of 
Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana —